Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)

Posted by: jimhogan

Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 15:49

Just last week I was reminded of the words "When you cease to make a contribution you begin to die." and, from some years later, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." It would be self-important to think that Eleanor Roosevelt or Martin Luther King Junior would care what I am up to here in 2004, but I sadly feel like their admonitions direct a questioning glance from the past at how I feel this November.

At my age, I have scarcely more than a decade until some sort of retirement at age 65. Actuarially, the "mean" Jim is probably good for another dozen years after that, but I have never been of the mind to wear out my welcome. What is it about "Do Not Resuscitate" that you don't understand?

Five years ago, a gent approached me at the check-in desk at the Puerto Vallarta airport and asked if I would kindly carry his Social Security paperwork back to LA and drop it in the mail. I remarked to myself that he was me 20 years hence and gladly took his envelope.

The fact is, though, that I will probably manage some sort of retirement, even if it involves a diet with a higher than average proportion of rice, beans, and Negra Modelo. Sadly, I am afraid that is a lot better than what many of our younger Americans here on the BBS, whether from California, Texas, Michigan or Pennsylvania, have to look forward to. So me? At this point, I guess I can afford to become silent, begin to die. What about you?

When cruising along the Interstate highway system in their SUVs, Bush conservatives rarely remark on the ability of a government (a Republican administration and, granted, in the name of defense) to get off its lazy, taxpayer-cheating ass and build highways hither and yon for the Semi-trailer and SUV culture to come. Big-L Libertarians close their eyes while driving the Interstates and pine for privately-operated tollroads. Mass transit? Bush conservatives have little good to say about mass transit. No station in their town or enclave. The Big-Ls refuse to ride the subway on principle, at least until it is privatized. It would seem that Bush conservatives only offer comment on the Interstate highway system when they bend an expensive 18-inch rim on a pothole.

The preceding transit rant is a bit of a metaphor. The point being that most of us have grown up in a post-FDR/LBJ era where things like Interstates, Social Security, Medicare and a long list of government services and programs were just part of the insensible landscape -- things that we no longer notice or value. So, in some respects, it is easy for professional naysayers like moralist-cum-drug-addict Limbaugh (or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt asshole I can think of) to rail against *any* governmental activity just on principle. All of those things like Social Security just sitting there in the background? I think our pitiful brains have just gotten to the point that we can ignore what societal accomplishments they represent, warts and all. All this at the time that candidate Bush has the fucking *gall* to mention FDR during his campaign; given the opportunity, I am quite sure that FDR would rise up from the grave and stuff a pretzel down Shrub's windpipe.

If the post-game analyses can be believed, congregants listened to the instructions of their pastors on October 31st and voted on November 2nd on 2.5 issues: gay marriage, abortion and (the 0.5 issue) assault weapons and handguns.

Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

So, what are they about? Oh, you haven't been paying attention. I don't want to bore you, but it is about reducing non-military government through duplicitous "reforms" and the unfunded mandates once decried by the likes of Mr. Gingrich. The Social Security that some of you 20 and 30-somethings were thinking about? Gone. With the 3 billion trillion national debts that Bush II intends, programs like SS will just need to pack it in, won't they?

A friend emailed on November 3rd and asked "is it just intellectual laziness?" Now, I know that "intellectual" has become a dirty word, but I could not immediately answer back with "No, it ain't that, Bubba!". Hmmmm, what I do know is that Bush voters have practically and publically said that incompetence, deceit, malfeasance and many other bad things don't matter -- just those 2.5 issues. How many Bush voters read something like John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" in the past few years? Zero. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that "the blessing of heaven is upon him" and those 2.5 issues.

So what does Bush's duplicitous "compassionate conservatism" accomplish? Well it sure has been good for the rich, hasn't it? Some of you here on the BBS are planning to become part of the ultra-rich, so you will like this. People have remarked on the merits and demerits of the large state of Texas. I think that the influence of the state of Texas on recent US political history is actually underrated. I think that the ghost of freebooter William Travis has marched up the Mississipi valley with a bible under his arm and Enron shares in his outstreched hand. Those of you outside of the US will hardly believe this, but textbooks in Texas are routinely shot down for -- gasp! -- sins such as including a picture of a woman with a briefcase. We all *know* that Texas is home to many fine, fair-minded people, but there is no escaping the narrow-minded "Don't mess with Texas!" braggadocio that would cause me to relocate should I have been born there. "Don't Mess With Texas!", though, is a great mantra for those insular, anti-government enterpreneurial Americans who aspire to ultra-richdom. Freeboot 2004.

2.5-issue Bush voters who manage to ignore Bush administration incompetence and deceit tend, I think, to take complacent comfort from the thought of smaller government that leaves many more social tasks in the hands of families and religious institutions. One question that always occurs to me is "Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer fire departments?" I mean, volunteer fire departments work well, don't they? Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer?

Without having thoroughly answered that question, 2.5-issue Bush voters have seemingly complete faith in the ability of their post-Bush, non-govermental, social institutions to provide for them and their loved ones. At church next Sunday, I expect that you'll be able to identify the members of the congregation who are adept at maintaining your local Interstate, but will you easily be able to pick out the crew that will provide 24-hour nursing care when your loved one falls victim to a disabling stroke or who will track down the source of an e. coli H7:0157 outbreak when one occurs?

Prior to November 2nd, I felt a certain compulsion to post things to this BBS and to relatives saying "Hey, have you seen this?" with links to the likes of Seymour Hersch. I am not feeling that need as much now. "Jesusland" as it is now known has made its presidential choice, so what's the point? Reading stuff like Hersch is obviously too complicated and doesn't have any bearing on the *real* (2.5) moral issues. Now, I have decided, I will likely manage to enjoy some quiet time reading fiction and drinking beer on a beach in some small town outside of Puerto Vallarta regardless of the encroachment of Jesusland. But what about you? What about *your* family? What is your future world looking like?

It is astonishing to me that so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence, deceits and disastrous arrogance of the GWB administration and turn out in record numbers to elect him, but that is just me. I am also increasingly convinced that the American "2.5" electorate is blithely willing to sacrifice some number of poor Marine SOBs in foreign countries, notwithstanding a much larger number of (primarily women and children) casualties, so long as the latter are not God-fearing white folks.

Soooo, I have been trying to identify the upside:

- As mentioned before, it will be hard for Rush to shout "those stupid Kerry people!" when there aren't any Kerry people. That is a comfort.
- With Bush in power, I get to listen to BBC newsreaders pronounce his name "Booosh" That is always a bit amusing.

Hmmm, that seems to be it for upsides. Anybody have any other ideas?

Term number two? The lying has already started.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 16:16

Quote:
(or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt [censored] I can think of)


Eyman?
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 16:59

What you said....only, for me, it boils down to the Constitution conservatives have been so fiercely proud and protective of...until they got the power to start changing it. This nation was founded by people who were primarily motivated by their need for religious tolerance, because their views differed from the then-extant majority's they fled. Even after a hundred and fifty years of increasing religious diversity as the country developed, they kept in mind the fact that their guiding motivation had been freedom to practice their religion(s) according to the dictates of their consicences, and underpinned the entire foundation of the country with their central desire for separation between church and state. Clearly, the majority of this country has now lost sight of that.

The talk of two Americas--or three?--that has arisen in the wake of this election: if taken to its logical conclusion, where is it taking us? For a couple of hundred years now, certainly dramatically in the past century, the rest of the "civilized" world has wondered at Ireland: How could citizens of Europe really be killing each other over religion? (how it started, at least; there were and are political, economic and rural vs.urban issues involved as well). They must be crazy, it was easy to suppose from our comfortable, largely tolerant diversity. Then slowly we began to get pro-life folks shooting doctors who performed abortions, and anti-semitic incidents, and a neo-Nazi movement, along with scattered militias and survivalists. More crazies, we thought. Then, from both sides, we got happenings like Oklahoma City's bombing and Ruby Ridge and Waco. Still isolated crazies. I don't for an instant mean to suggest that the conservative right is made up soley of such folks (some of, including my best, friends,are... ), but what I am trying to say is that, just as we are seeing within the Middle East, much of Southest Asia and now within our own country, we have a clash of world views, of perceptions of civilizations, if you will. What has been the outcome of such clashes? The most divisive conflict in our own history was a bit more than 125 years ago, and the wounds haven't entirely healed yet. While not aspiring to become Cassandra, I am asking that we all look at where we're heading and what we can do about it--because to use the politicians' rhetoric, this is a defining moment in our history, both as a country and within the increasingly interconnected context of the rest of the world. (Whew, a rant first thing in the morning..!.. on weekends I'm a night owl).
Posted by: loren

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 17:19

Thank you both for scaring the ever loving crap out of this twenty-something =] Agreed on all fronts. I wish I could contribute a large diatribe, but there's nothing I can say that hasn't already been expressed. The general ignorance of history, or learning lessons from it, in our society is amazing and seems to largely contribute to all of this. *sigh* I am truly afraid my friends.
Posted by: FireFox31

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 17:41

Quote:
so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence

Another good thing is, only a little more than half the Americans ignored the incompetence. Almost half of the American people either A) know what's good for them, or B) hate what's bad for them, so they voted Kerry. Take heart that we're not totally overrun.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 17:57

Quote:
Another good thing is, only a little more than half the Americans ignored the incompetence.


Hmm, the more pessimistic viewpoint would say the 48% of Americans where going to vote democrat regardless. Leaving only a couple percent at most who acknowledged the incompetence and allowed it to affect their vote

-Mike
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 18:06

That's pretty pessimistic. Consider that in 1984 only 40% of the popular vote went for Mondale (and he won only MN and DC)
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 18:12

Quote:
Just last week I was reminded of the words "When you cease to make a contribution you begin to die." and, from some years later, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." It would be self-important to think that Eleanor Roosevelt or Martin Luther King Junior would care what I am up to here in 2004, but I sadly feel like their admonitions direct a questioning glance from the past at how I feel this November.

At my age, I have scarcely more than a decade until some sort of retirement at age 65. Actuarially, the "mean" Jim is probably good for another dozen years after that, but I have never been of the mind to wear out my welcome. What is it about "Do Not Resuscitate" that you don't understand?

Five years ago, a gent approached me at the check-in desk at the Puerto Vallarta airport and asked if I would kindly carry his Social Security paperwork back to LA and drop it in the mail. I remarked to myself that he was me 20 years hence and gladly took his envelope.

The fact is, though, that I will probably manage some sort of retirement, even if it involves a diet with a higher than average proportion of rice, beans, and Negra Modelo. Sadly, I am afraid that is a lot better than what many of our younger Americans here on the BBS, whether from California, Texas, Michigan or Pennsylvania, have to look forward to. So me? At this point, I guess I can afford to become silent, begin to die. What about you?

When cruising along the Interstate highway system in their SUVs, Bush conservatives rarely remark on the ability of a government (a Republican administration and, granted, in the name of defense) to get off its lazy, taxpayer-cheating ass and build highways hither and yon for the Semi-trailer and SUV culture to come. Big-L Libertarians close their eyes while driving the Interstates and pine for privately-operated tollroads. Mass transit? Bush conservatives have little good to say about mass transit. No station in their town or enclave. The Big-Ls refuse to ride the subway on principle, at least until it is privatized. It would seem that Bush conservatives only offer comment on the Interstate highway system when they bend an expensive 18-inch rim on a pothole.

The preceding transit rant is a bit of a metaphor. The point being that most of us have grown up in a post-FDR/LBJ era where things like Interstates, Social Security, Medicare and a long list of government services and programs were just part of the insensible landscape -- things that we no longer notice or value. So, in some respects, it is easy for professional naysayers like moralist-cum-drug-addict Limbaugh (or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt asshole I can think of) to rail against *any* governmental activity just on principle. All of those things like Social Security just sitting there in the background? I think our pitiful brains have just gotten to the point that we can ignore what societal accomplishments they represent, warts and all. All this at the time that candidate Bush has the fucking *gall* to mention FDR during his campaign; given the opportunity, I am quite sure that FDR would rise up from the grave and stuff a pretzel down Shrub's windpipe.

If the post-game analyses can be believed, congregants listened to the instructions of their pastors on October 31st and voted on November 2nd on 2.5 issues: gay marriage, abortion and (the 0.5 issue) assault weapons and handguns.

Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

So, what are they about? Oh, you haven't been paying attention. I don't want to bore you, but it is about reducing non-military government through duplicitous "reforms" and the unfunded mandates once decried by the likes of Mr. Gingrich. The Social Security that some of you 20 and 30-somethings were thinking about? Gone. With the 3 billion trillion national debts that Bush II intends, programs like SS will just need to pack it in, won't they?

A friend emailed on November 3rd and asked "is it just intellectual laziness?" Now, I know that "intellectual" has become a dirty word, but I could not immediately answer back with "No, it ain't that, Bubba!". Hmmmm, what I do know is that Bush voters have practically and publically said that incompetence, deceit, malfeasance and many other bad things don't matter -- just those 2.5 issues. How many Bush voters read something like John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" in the past few years? Zero. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that "the blessing of heaven is upon him" and those 2.5 issues.

So what does Bush's duplicitous "compassionate conservatism" accomplish? Well it sure has been good for the rich, hasn't it? Some of you here on the BBS are planning to become part of the ultra-rich, so you will like this. People have remarked on the merits and demerits of the large state of Texas. I think that the influence of the state of Texas on recent US political history is actually underrated. I think that the ghost of freebooter William Travis has marched up the Mississipi valley with a bible under his arm and Enron shares in his outstreched hand. Those of you outside of the US will hardly believe this, but textbooks in Texas are routinely shot down for -- gasp! -- sins such as including a picture of a woman with a briefcase. We all *know* that Texas is home to many fine, fair-minded people, but there is no escaping the narrow-minded "Don't mess with Texas!" braggadocio that would cause me to relocate should I have been born there. "Don't Mess With Texas!", though, is a great mantra for those insular, anti-government enterpreneurial Americans who aspire to ultra-richdom. Freeboot 2004.

2.5-issue Bush voters who manage to ignore Bush administration incompetence and deceit tend, I think, to take complacent comfort from the thought of smaller government that leaves many more social tasks in the hands of families and religious institutions. One question that always occurs to me is "Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer fire departments?" I mean, volunteer fire departments work well, don't they? Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer?

Without having thoroughly answered that question, 2.5-issue Bush voters have seemingly complete faith in the ability of their post-Bush, non-govermental, social institutions to provide for them and their loved ones. At church next Sunday, I expect that you'll be able to identify the members of the congregation who are adept at maintaining your local Interstate, but will you easily be able to pick out the crew that will provide 24-hour nursing care when your loved one falls victim to a disabling stroke or who will track down the source of an e. coli H7:0157 outbreak when one occurs?

Prior to November 2nd, I felt a certain compulsion to post things to this BBS and to relatives saying "Hey, have you seen this?" with links to the likes of Seymour Hersch. I am not feeling that need as much now. "Jesusland" as it is now known has made its presidential choice, so what's the point? Reading stuff like Hersch is obviously too complicated and doesn't have any bearing on the *real* (2.5) moral issues. Now, I have decided, I will likely manage to enjoy some quiet time reading fiction and drinking beer on a beach in some small town outside of Puerto Vallarta regardless of the encroachment of Jesusland. But what about you? What about *your* family? What is your future world looking like?

It is astonishing to me that so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence, deceits and disastrous arrogance of the GWB administration and turn out in record numbers to elect him, but that is just me. I am also increasingly convinced that the American "2.5" electorate is blithely willing to sacrifice some number of poor Marine SOBs in foreign countries, notwithstanding a much larger number of (primarily women and children) casualties, so long as the latter are not God-fearing white folks.

Soooo, I have been trying to identify the upside:

- As mentioned before, it will be hard for Rush to shout "those stupid Kerry people!" when there aren't any Kerry people. That is a comfort.
- With Bush in power, I get to listen to BBC newsreaders pronounce his name "Booosh" That is always a bit amusing.

Hmmm, that seems to be it for upsides. Anybody have any other ideas?

Term number two? The lying has already started.


No.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 18:39

Quote:
but what I am trying to say is that, just as we are seeing within the Middle East, much of Southest Asia and now within our own country, we have a clash of world views, of perceptions of civilizations, if you will. What has been the outcome of such clashes? The most divisive conflict in our own history was a bit more than 125 years ago, and the wounds haven't entirely healed yet. While not aspiring to become Cassandra, I am asking that we all look at where we're heading and what we can do about it--because to use the politicians' rhetoric, this is a defining moment in our history, both as a country and within the increasingly interconnected context of the rest of the world. (Whew, a rant first thing in the morning..!.. on weekends I'm a night owl).

Yo, Kayak,

I appreciate your comments. As you say, I think that there are a number of other perspectives from which the current unhappy circumstance can be viewed. I just happened to be in a domestically unhappy mood as I rolled out of bed this AM. Perspective-wise, the situation in the Middle East is right up there, and one where religious aspects of 2.5-issue political opinion have a huge impact. I mean, somebody look at this and even *begin* to tell me how some of this discussion makes sense. (Hmmmm, if the Middle East evaporates in a mushroom cloud, is this *not* good with respect to our salvation and the rebuilding of the Temple???) So, you have rapture-bound folks (dare I say wackos?) like General Boykin driving our political and military policy.

Bah. I don't want to go on.

But I trust that when Arafat dies, our current administration will continue its unceasing efforts to make sure that peace finally comes to the Middle East...whether anybody is left alive there or not.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 20:02

Quote:
Eyeman?

Oh, yeah. The subject of the failed Horse's Ass Initiative. The role model for anyone who wants to make a living by not having any positive ideas.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 20:04

Normally, I would welcome reading a dissenting opinion in any debate, but that just struck me as lazy.

I don't mean that to be insulting, but I feel that Jim put great thought and feeling into what he said, and to simply throw a 'quote' tag around the whole thing and reply with a totally unqualified 'No' was, at least in my opinion, not only extremely dismissive but a very good example of the very type of problem Jim spoke of.

Everyone feel perfectly free to ignore or criticize me on this.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 21:23

Ouch!

But I am affraid it might be even worse:

Quote:
Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

True. But, Dubya's handlers will want to stay in power, and they are riding a tiger: fundamentalists will have to be satisfied, or else... Republicans will have to deliver. So, what will be the sequence? Gay merriage, abortion rights, prayer in public schools, christian creation myth masquerading as science in biology curriculum... What next? When will children born without the parents first being subject to right rituals again be called 'illegitimate' (and being discriminated against)? Next? Premarital sex, education and work for women... One day Monsanto will perhaps notice that all administration's efforts to force their 'sons of Roundup ready' upon the world is to no avail, because there will be no geneticists left to develop them...

And yes, Rove is genius!
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 21:43

So, what you are essentially saying is that there indeed is a 'clash of civilizations*', namely religious fundamentalisms (of any kind, of course) and, well, civilization, and that this clash is comming to the USA, from within? Scarry, but true. I see elements of that at home, too, but it seems that most of the Europe is holding rather well.

I read several articles (mostly on AlterNet) arguing against Kerry's post-defeat "let healing begin" messages; I tend to agree; when the darkness really falls (see my reply to Jim), somebody will have to fight.


*) Googling shows that for Buchannan and his ilk Huntington's 'clash' is not good enough; they prefer 'war'
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 22:07

Well, if nothing else, quoting the whole thing just to say no to the one question near (not at) the end was sort of confusing.
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 22:25

Quote:
Just ...started.


You go Jim Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 23:03

Quote:
Well, if nothing else, quoting the whole thing just to say no to the one question near (not at) the end was sort of confusing.


Actually, I don't think it was very confusing when it comes right down to it. I know quite a few people who, sadly, use that technique. By quoting the entire statement of the other person, it seems as though all that was needed was a simple "no" to refute their "silly little argument". Please note that those are my words, not Brad's. Nor am I suggesting that that was what Brad intended. Simply that I personally took it that way based on my personal experience.....
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 06/11/2004 23:41

Sorry wb (and Jim), I wasn't trying to be lazy. I was actually doing a call back to an old "Point/Counterpoint" article in the Onion from way back. It's a classic and I know that some people here have read it. Basically, one person was making a detailed arguement and the other person was replying "No,", "You're wrong," or "Don't get all worked up."

I'm not going to bother getting involved in a thread entitled "Bush Bashing." I realize that, after Tuesday, Democrats and people on the left need some time to vent. Personally, I don't think many of them (other than Nancy Polocy of all people) "get it". Instead of realizing that a very large portion of this country disagrees with their views, they have to pull an elitist view that everyone that doesn't live in a major city is stupid, ignorant or a rednecks (actual quotes from editorials at major papers this week) or was tricked into voting not only for Bush, but for Republicans across the board. Instead of looking within, they are blaming the voter for being dumb and the RNC for exploiting that. One only has to look at the county by county map to know that the issues that drove the vote ARE America and they voted on their beliefs, and not because of some knee-jerk reactions. It wasn't even close.

But, despite that, I understand how some people will need to let this sink in a little bit and get their anger out by whatever means for a while. I didn't call any of my Democrat friends to brag about Bush's win, and I'm not about to do it here.

So rant, bash, demonize and insult away. Let Off Topic be the emotional tampon for all this rage. I don't think this thread was meant as a debate, so I won't bother trying to make it one. For that, I'll wait a week or two. I was just trying to be a little light hearted, but I had bad timing.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 00:13

Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way, and I sincerely hope you didn't take my comments that way. Now that you mention it, I do remember that Onion article, but I still stand by what I said about Jim really putting some thought into his comment, and I think that by responding the way you did, without any qualification whatsoever, you were being dismissive. If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

I think you underestimate a lot of people on here, which is unfortunate. I don't know what it is I'm supposed to "get", being that I'm not a Democrat or even what I would consider "on the left", which seems to be the new term for anyone who isn't Cristian or Republican. What I do know is that I, myself, came from a very small town in upstate New York, with the closest city (Syracuse) being at least an hour away, and I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America". By this you imply that I am NOT America, because I disagree with the values that drove the vote. Not only me, but over 50 million others as well. Because I don't go to church and pray does not mean that I am not "America", whatever that may mean to you. This country is not only for those of you who believe in God, or in denying certain lifestyles legitimacy, or that stem cell research is immoral, or in whatever. It is for all of us.

I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted. I just think it's a bit unfortunate that many people (it would seem you included) don't seem to understand that although the other (nearly) half of the country are not getting what they want, they are still part of the country and deserve to have their voices heard just as much as those of you who voted for Bush. There seems to be this culture of "our guy won so we're right" growing, and that's very disturbing to me. I don't think anyone is right or wrong here; they just see things differently. But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?
Posted by: drakino

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 00:16

Quote:
or was tricked into voting not only for Bush, but for Republicans across the board.

I was actually suprised to see the Colorado election results. A majority did vote for Bush, but then we also put Salazar (D) in the senate even with the campaigning Kerry did with Salazar. It at least gives me a glimmer of hope that people here voted for who they thought would do a better overall job, and not just because of one or two issues, or party lines.

We also passed a tobacco tax hike (victory attributed due to the people pointing out we had the lowest tax on it in the country), and an energy bill declaring milestones for "cleaner" energy sources to be used in the state. Local to the Springs, we also managed to pass an issue to help finally start some much needed roadway improvement projects, something that for the longest time was stonewalled by people who didn't want the city to grow. Well, all they managed to accomplish was growth occuring anyway and a longer commute to work. It's likely we are the only city around half a million with a single traffic light free highway, with bits still at two lanes. Sadly the amendment to split our electoral votes didn't pass, but after finding out who was trying to get it to pass, I can understand.
Posted by: FireFox31

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 00:18

Quote:
very large portion of this country disagrees with their views

I guess 52% is large these days.

But yes, I've never liked how the liberal media, which controls near everything we see and hear, has always relentlessly attacked Republicans. Being a Republican myself, I hate that I've had to actually agree with the media and vote against my GOP two elections in a row.

Man, by the end of W2, I'll have been 16 years with presidents that I despised. Oh well, there's nothing that I, the individual, can do about it in this great democracy with all its "rule by the people". Just let me push that little button once every four years because that's all the "rule" I get.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 00:29

Quote:
Sorry wb (and Jim), I wasn't trying to be lazy. I was actually doing a call back to an old "Point/Counterpoint" article in the Onion from way back. It's a classic and I know that some people here have read it. Basically, one person was making a detailed arguement and the other person was replying "No,", "You're wrong," or "Don't get all worked up."


i really need to start reading the Onion with greater regularity. As it is now, I only check when someone tells me there's something good.
Posted by: cushman

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 00:45

Holy Cow, I have to respond to this one.

Quote:
Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way, and I sincerely hope you didn't take my comments that way. Now that you mention it, I do remember that Onion article, but I still stand by what I said about Jim really putting some thought into his comment, and I think that by responding the way you did, without any qualification whatsoever, you were being dismissive. If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.

Quote:
I think you underestimate a lot of people on here, which is unfortunate. I don't know what it is I'm supposed to "get", being that I'm not a Democrat or even what I would consider "on the left", which seems to be the new term for anyone who isn't Cristian or Republican. What I do know is that I, myself, came from a very small town in upstate New York, with the closest city (Syracuse) being at least an hour away, and I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

Then he was not referring to you. He directed his comments to people "on the left" or Democrats. Also, I feel that he was trying to state the viewpoint that Kerry supporters and people upset about the outcome of the election view those who voted for Bush as "stupid, ignorant or a redneck", which is underestimating over half the country (including maybe some of your friends, family or neighbors an hour away from Syracuse). Jim stated in his post above that Bush supporters have "been had".

Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America". By this you imply that I am NOT America, because I disagree with the values that drove the vote. Not only me, but over 50 million others as well. Because I don't go to church and pray does not mean that I am not "America", whatever that may mean to you. This country is not only for those of you who believe in God, or in denying certain lifestyles legitimacy, or that stem cell research is immoral, or in whatever. It is for all of us.

Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America". I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted. I just think it's a bit unfortunate that many people (it would seem you included) don't seem to understand that although the other (nearly) half of the country are not getting what they want, they are still part of the country and deserve to have their voices heard just as much as those of you who voted for Bush. There seems to be this culture of "our guy won so we're right" growing, and that's very disturbing to me. I don't think anyone is right or wrong here; they just see things differently. But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 01:07

Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?


Well, the Jesusland quote was from the least useful of the 3 maps I posted the other day (the purple map and the density map had actual content to them, showing how "red states" and "blue states" were really not that simple, that we really aren't 2 countries)
Posted by: cushman

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 01:14

Quote:
Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Well, the Jesusland quote was from the least useful of the 3 maps I posted the other day (the purple map and the density map had actual content to them, showing how "red states" and "blue states" were really not that simple, that we really aren't 2 countries)

Yes, I saw that map. It was supposed to be humor. I think Jim was intending to use that reference to somehow refer to those people who voted for Bush in a serious (but flippant) manner. I think this because earlier in his post he said that those who voted for Bush (according to the 2.5 issues) "listened to the instructions of their pastors". So in his eyes, this places them in "Jesusland".
Posted by: Tim

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 01:55

Quote:
I think Jim was intending to use that reference to somehow refer to those people who voted for Bush in a serious (but flippant) manner. I think this because earlier in his post he said that those who voted for Bush (according to the 2.5 issues) "listened to the instructions of their pastors". So in his eyes, this places them in "Jesusland".


Do people honestly believe it was only those 2.5 issues that swayed voters? Are those seen as the biggest contributors to the votes or what? Basically, I'm confused why I see people (on this forum and on our internal Usenet server at work) think that the GGG (to quote somebody from a different thread) were the only reasons somebody would vote for Bush.

Hrm... maybe if I can't figure that out, maybe I should belong to the dumb, duped, ignorant redneck rural majority that are the reason Bush is hitting a second term.

- Tim (Confused as always)
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 02:17

Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Hmmmm. You must have somehow gotten the impression that the Clintons are my pals

Of course, if GWB could talk Bill into serving as his Secretary of State......

edit: unfounded sexual speculation removed so that this post will qualify for a PG rating
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 02:22

Quote:
Holy Cow, I have to respond to this one.

Quote:
Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way..<SNIP>..If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.


And I stated that I hadn't intended to insult and hoped that he hadn't taken it that way. Your point, Mark? Are you implying that "Sorry, I was making light of your comments" should have made it ok?

Quote:
Quote:
I think you underestimate a lot of people on here..<SNIP>..I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

Then he was not referring to you. He directed his comments to people "on the left" or Democrats. Also, I feel that he was trying to state the viewpoint that Kerry supporters and people upset about the outcome of the election view those who voted for Bush as "stupid, ignorant or a redneck", which is underestimating over half the country (including maybe some of your friends, family or neighbors an hour away from Syracuse). Jim stated in his post above that Bush supporters have "been had".


I'm well aware, thank you, of what Jim stated in his post. My comment was in reference to what Brad had said regarding "Democrats and people on the left" failing to "get it". You yourself say you feel he was trying to state the viewpoint of Kerry supporters and people unhappy about the outcome of the election. I'm both. So Mark, by your logic, he was referring to me. And he was wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.


Again, Brad made this comment about "Democrats and people on the left". Assuming this is (as usual) inclusive of anyone supporting someone other than Bush, it did include me.

Quote:
Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America"..<SNIP>..It is for all of us.

Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America". I think you're reading into it a bit too much.


I don't really understand the first part of your comment. I don't think I'm reading into Brad's comment at all, though. Brad said "the issues that drove the vote ARE America." Well, the issues that drove the vote were, by and large, things considered by the Christians as "moral issues". Things such as stem-cell research, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These are things on which I totally disagree with the majority, or so it would seem. Hence, I must not be "America". Could you explain how I'm reading too much into it?

Quote:
Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?


I would think that would be clear. The "been had" comment is, I'm sure, due to frustration.

The "Jesusland"? Not the words I would use. Would you prefer "Bible Belt"? It is no secret that Christians are quite happy with the way the election went. Maybe not all, but I would guess a majority. Ask Archbishop Chaput here in Colorado. Jim, it would seem, is not fond of the idea of America moving just a little closer to being a Theocracy. Nor am I, but then I am (the election would suggest) part of the slim minority.

Quote:
Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted..<SNIP>..But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.


So anything someone says here is beyond criticizm as long as they don't "start the thread"? That's a bit silly, don't you think? And though I agree with you that people have been more likely to start a post with "Throw Bush out!", have you considered that the demographics of this board may not be the same as that of America?

Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.


Again, Brad didn't direct his comments at Jim. He directed them at the "Democrats and people on the left". The "elitists" if you will.

Quote:
Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.



I think, sadly, that you may be being a bit naive here, Mark. I think it speaks well of you that you registered without party affiliation, and that you claim to have voted in the same manner. But from the people I've spoken to, if they were voting for Bush, they just went Republican right on down the line.

And I think I've made the comment to you before, but I find it interesting that you chose not to comment on the idea of "everyone having the same rights as everyone else", but happily pointed out the problems with my thoughts on partisan politics.
Posted by: cushman

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 02:22

Quote:
Do people honestly believe it was only those 2.5 issues that swayed voters? Are those seen as the biggest contributors to the votes or what? Basically, I'm confused why I see people (on this forum and on our internal Usenet server at work) think that the GGG (to quote somebody from a different thread) were the only reasons somebody would vote for Bush.

I chalk it up as an inability to see another viewpoint. Sometimes those who often accuse conservatives of being closed minded and inflexible cannot be open minded enough themselves to see why a conservative believes and votes the way they do. I see a lot of people baffled as to why Dubya won. Because they believe that any intelligent person would not vote for Bush, they feel it is safe to assume that all who voted for him are dumb, ignorant rednecks who have been tricked. They cannot believe that voters look at each candidate critically and decide for themselves who would be the best leader.

I see narrow viewpoints from "Look at me, I'm open-minded!" people just as much as conservatives. If I am gay, liberal and pro-choice, I am entitled to my opinion. If I am straight, conservative and pro-life, my opinions make me narrow minded, regardless of how much thought I have put into them. What most people do not realize is that both points of view are entirely valid, it is how you act upon them that is key.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 02:31

Quote:
I see narrow viewpoints from "Look at me, I'm open-minded!" people just as much as conservatives. If I am gay, liberal and pro-choice, I am entitled to my opinion. If I am straight, conservative and pro-life, my opinions make me narrow minded, regardless of how much thought I have put into them.


No, if you're straight, conservative and pro-life, you're 100% entitled to your opinion, and should be free from having to have people call you narrow minded because of it.

The problem is, many people with those same beliefs are of the opinion that the only people who should have the right to exercise their opinions are straight, conservative and pro-life.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of people on both side seem to not give a damn if the other side has a right to exercise their opinion.

Be pro-life. But don't tell people that have to be. Be straight, but don't tell people they have to be (or try to force them to by denying their rights). Be conservative, but don't tell people they have to be.

It's pretty easy, actually.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 03:13

Quote:
They cannot believe that voters look at each candidate critically and decide for themselves who would be the best leader.



Actually, the only reason I would have trouble believing it are hearing lies parroted as fact. The Saddam-Al Qaeda link. The weapons of mass destruction. It's not even an overwhelming majority of people who voted for Bush who cite these as reasons, and so it's not like I could reasonably sit here and tell you that everyone who voted differently than me is dumb or blind. But, for the people who do believe it, it's not hard to stereotype. I'd be happy to be wrong. If I am, then Fox News presumably has stories about the link or the weapons being found, right?

I'm open-minded: tell me what I missed.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 03:17

Quote:
Be pro-life. But don't tell people that have to be.


And again, here's the disconnect... don't be a murderer, but don't tell other people that they must be. Having the argument at the level of what happens after conception isn't the level to have it. If you agree murder is bad, the discussion you need to have is when does it become a life. If you disagree that murder is bad, well, ok, that's consistent.

Now, of course, for those who oppose abortion, death penalty's right out, right?
Posted by: cushman

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 03:33

Quote:
And I stated that I hadn't intended to insult and hoped that he hadn't taken it that way. Your point, Mark? Are you implying that "Sorry, I was making light of your comments" should have made it ok?

Yes. This is Off-Topic, not the Serious Political Discussion With Well-Thought-Out-Humorless Replies board.

Quote:
I'm well aware, thank you, of what Jim stated in his post. My comment was in reference to what Brad had said regarding "Democrats and people on the left" failing to "get it". You yourself say you feel he was trying to state the viewpoint of Kerry supporters and people unhappy about the outcome of the election. I'm both. So Mark, by your logic, he was referring to me.

I think Brad was speaking generally about "Democrats and people on the left", not you personally.

Quote:
And he was wrong.

Was he wrong about you personally or about "Democrats and people on the left"? Again, I do not think he was speaking about you personally.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

Again, Brad made this comment about "Democrats and people on the left". Assuming this is (as usual) inclusive of anyone supporting someone other than Bush, it did include me.

Still, his comments were not directed personally at you, but at the larger group.

I am a man, and I (seemingly) am in the minority of men who do not like football. The statement: "men like football" is not false just because I am a man, and I do not like football. "All men like football" would be an incorrect statement because I am a man who does not like football.

"Democrats and people on the left" imply people who voted for Bush were tricked or too dumb to vote otherwise. This does not mean you personally if you do not believe that is the case. The media and others (including Jim, whose post started this) have made these statements.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America"..<SNIP>..It is for all of us.

Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America". I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

I don't really understand the first part of your comment. I don't think I'm reading into Brad's comment at all, though. Brad said "the issues that drove the vote ARE America." Well, the issues that drove the vote were, by and large, things considered by the Christians as "moral issues". Things such as stem-cell research, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These are things on which I totally disagree with the majority, or so it would seem. Hence, I must not be "America". Could you explain how I'm reading too much into it?

I'm not sure what Brad meant exactly when he made that statement, he should respond to that. I do not think, however, that he intended to pigeonhole anyone into a category. You seem to feel personally attacked by posts that are trying to discuss the issues, talking about general groups of people. Nobody is talking about "all of us". We are talking about "most Kerry supporters" or "most conservatives".

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

I would think that would be clear. The "been had" comment is, I'm sure, due to frustration.

The "Jesusland"? Not the words I would use. Would you prefer "Bible Belt"? It is no secret that Christians are quite happy with the way the election went. Maybe not all, but I would guess a majority. Ask Archbishop Chaput here in Colorado. Jim, it would seem, is not fond of the idea of America moving just a little closer to being a Theocracy. Nor am I, but then I am (the election would suggest) part of the slim minority.

I do not think that lumping Christians into one category works any better than lumping "Democrats and those on the left" together. Named religions do not represent everyone who is a Christian, and probably Archbishop Chaput and I would disagree on many issues. As for the term to use, well, I don't think Bible Belt is any better than calling Frisco "Liberal Land".

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted..<SNIP>..But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

So anything someone says here is beyond criticizm as long as they don't "start the thread"? That's a bit silly, don't you think? And though I agree with you that people have been more likely to start a post with "Throw Bush out!", have you considered that the demographics of this board may not be the same as that of America?

My point was to say that Brad was not on the attack. He was not stating that you did not deserve to have these freedoms, or that anyone that voted for Bush is/was better than people who voted otherwise. By stating the disproportinate number of anti-Bush threads, I was trying to reinforce the point that nobody here is advocating that just because Bush won that you should have any freedoms taken away.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

Again, Brad didn't direct his comments at Jim. He directed them at the "Democrats and people on the left". The "elitists" if you will.

I think this has been hashed over enough.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.

I think, sadly, that you may be being a bit naive here, Mark. I think it speaks well of you that you registered without party affiliation, and that you claim to have voted in the same manner. But from the people I've spoken to, if they were voting for Bush, they just went Republican right on down the line.

Sure, and there are many Democrats who do the same thing. I think it has more to do with their stance on the issues than it had to do with the candidate's affiliation. Those voters vote Republican because generally that party shares the same viewpoint as they do.

Quote:
And I think I've made the comment to you before, but I find it interesting that you chose not to comment on the idea of "everyone having the same rights as everyone else", but happily pointed out the problems with my thoughts on partisan politics.

What would you like me to say? That I believe that all those who voted for W should get slaves from the Kerry voting pool? Our entire government is based upon the idea that everyone has the same rights as everyone else. I agree with this point of view. What specifically do you think I am trying to avoid here?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 03:39

(Whoa. That'll teach me to take an afternoon nap. Mark, I am going to respond here as best as I can because it seems like the right place, not because it is where -- a tip of the hat to Brad and Webroach -- I agree or disagree....)

My apologies in advance to whoever (whomever?) I may misquote!

Quote:
He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.

I did not respond to Brad's "not" post in great part because I thought there might be a jimhogan-esque bit of Onion-ish (We're not worthy!) provocathumor in it.

webroach quote: I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.
Quote:
Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

I won't argue with this. Tricked? Not sure. Deluded themselves into thinking that they were voting to achieve a particular aim when the practical purposes of their candidate were something quite different? Is this being tricked?

Webroach Quote: What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America". By this you imply that I am NOT America, because I disagree with the values that drove the vote. Not only me, but over 50 million others as well. Because I don't go to church and pray does not mean that I am not "America", whatever that may mean to you. This country is not only for those of you who believe in God, or in denying certain lifestyles legitimacy, or that stem cell research is immoral, or in whatever. It is for all of us.

I am with webroach on this, bigtime.

Quote:
Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America" I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

Please note that *NEVER*, in any of my posts did I use the term "STUPID REDNECKS*.

webroach quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.


Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are suosed to accomplish what, exactly?

My assertion that "You've been had" was intended to provoke Bush voters (and I know there are some of you out there!) to consider the possibility that they *have* been had. I tried my best to put enough anti-Bush sentiment in the subject line so that Bush voters who are already certain that they have *not* been had could simply skip this thread.

"Jesusland"? I *know* with great certainty that there are one of two agnostics who voted for GWB on Tuesday just because they wanted to keep the US of A safe from terrorists. OK, so maybe they are not the brightest agnostics out there but, hey, we all get to vote, right?

As with the Jesusland map, my use of the term "Jesusland" is a device. I will keep using it from time to time though, until events convince me that it is not a legitimate device. What are your views on Armageddon?

webroach Quote: I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted. I just think it's a bit unfortunate that many people (it would seem you included) don't seem to understand that although the other (nearly) half of the country are not getting what they want, they are still part of the country and deserve to have their voices heard just as much as those of you who voted for Bush. There seems to be this culture of "our guy won so we're right" growing, and that's very disturbing to me. I don't think anyone is right or wrong here; they just see things differently. But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

I am with webroach, I think, on this. Post-Tuesday, as in post-2000, I detect a certain convenient "Get over it!' sentiment that seems to imply that we are not reasonable people if we *don't* get over it. Well, I gotta say: I am completely with the French on this. I ain't getting over it until there is a Jim-loving, limp-wristed, beaujolais-sipping, Medicare-loving, SNCF-riding, Healthcare-for-all independent (or Green?) man or woman in the Oval Office.

Quote:
Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

This, I think, is one of the joys of incumbency.

webroach Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

Quote:
I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

What comments did the media make that I made? If you can point these out, I will consider retracting them!

Seriously. I get nervous anytime my views start to mirror what is presented by our "independent" media here, and if you think that what I have to say is nothing more than recycled material from Fox News, NPR or CNN, please call me out on the particulars. Yes, I even get nervous about their assessment of 2.5-issue "moral issue" exit-poll respondents. Of course, I have to figure out *some* fucking reason that > 50% of voters would choose an ignorant, incompetent liar, so just cut me some slack while I consider that question.

webroach Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?


Heh. Idealist.

Hey, I've got this line on a furnished apartment in Puerto Vallarta that you might be interested in!

Quote:
I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.

I consider myself an independent simply because no major party has managed to represent my point of view in any credible way. Maybe I should go check out the Green party to see if they do. They could probably use the help!

What I do know is that the neocons of GWB '04 were so far away from what I consider American democratic values that I found myself compelled to vote for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate. Will the situation be any better in '08? I am not optimistic. Informed citizens who listen to Rush Limbaugh think my choices will be John McCain or Hillary Clinton. What joy there?
Posted by: cushman

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 04:06

Quote:
The problem is, many people with those same beliefs are of the opinion that the only people who should have the right to exercise their opinions are straight, conservative and pro-life.

I do not agree with those people, but I respect their right to have an opinion that is different than mine. I do not believe that people who hold such a hard-line conservative stance will ever gain a majority. I've stated before I feel that most people in the US tend toward the middle of the road (where I am) and not extreme left OR right. These are the more or less silent majority, you do not hear from them often since they are not newspaper editors or religous crusaders.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, plenty of people on both side seem to not give a damn if the other side has a right to exercise their opinion.

Agreed!

Quote:
Be pro-life. But don't tell people that have to be. Be straight, but don't tell people they have to be (or try to force them to by denying their rights). Be conservative, but don't tell people they have to be.


Just for the record, I would like to state what I believe here so there is no confusion. I feel that this may help people see where I am coming from and clear up points I have made in other posts. I will address the main issues we seem to re-hash on this board:

I am a Christian, not affilliated with any church or religion. I think of the church as other people like me who have faith, not some bloated ceramonial organization that has to take money from it's congregation to pay for a building and fuel to heat it. Many things that bother most people about religion also bother me. I do not think that religion the way it is today was the way it was intended to be by God.

I am straight (married and have a kid as evidence). I do not oppose gay marriage. I do not support gay marriage. I actually did not vote on that issue in Ohio in this election, because I could not do so either way honestly. I have gay friends and co-workers, some that are in long-term relationships that they would wish to become permanant. If a gay civil union issue was on the ballot, I would vote in favor of allowing gay civil unions. I do not support gay marriage because "marriage" in my eyes is intended for a special relationship between my wife and I. I did not vote for the ban because I am against any more governmental restrictions on our lives.

I am pro-life. My son was born a year and a half ago, but 3-4 months into the pregnancy I could see his fingers, toes and eyes. How anyone can say that he is not alive then is well beyond me. I feel people have the right to make a bad decision, but I feel that this is one of the worst decisions you could make.

I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault. I do not like my tax dollars going towards social programs that are ineffective or inefficient. I do not believe it is the government's job to take my money and give it to someone else. My tax dollars should be used to improve me and my family's quality of life, I should not be forced to give to what is basically charity. I can do that just fine on my own.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 04:11

Quote:
Will the situation be any better in '08? I am not optimistic. Informed citizens who listen to Rush Limbaugh think my choices will be John McCain or Hillary Clinton. What joy there?

Just to play Devil's Advocate...just who would you like to vote _for_?

I ask this because there seems to be two opposing standards...

Voters who will enthusiastically to vote for someone who has been shown to heavily distort the truth, if not outright lie, whilst running the country into its Largest Ever Deficit (tm) and using its most revered legal document as a political football, and

Voters who can't appear to get enthusiastic about _anyone_ and who simply vote against a candidate.
Posted by: SuperQ

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 04:16

I saw your comment about women with briefcase, I stared at the screen for 5min thinking.. that cant' be true.. so i did a little google dig, and if 1/2 of what I read about the texas board of education is true, I am convinced on what I am going to do.

You asked how our families are going to handle the spread of Jesusland.

My common-law and I (we refuse to get married due to religious connotations, and discrimination that is running rampant) plan to jump ship as soon as reasonably possible. Our current plans are Finland, and possibly Netherlands. Finland works well for her, because she has strong cultural ancestory, and speaks Finnish fluently. This would be a difficult move for me. Netherlands also seems like a reasonable place to live, Dutch being easy enough to learn.

The largest issue is of course how to make a living. Ursula has been slowly networking job leads in Finland, but it's hard to interview +8 hours away.

Maybe canada is an option, we're in minnesota, so it's not that far of, don't ya know.
Posted by: SuperQ

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 04:53

Quote:
Be pro-life. But don't tell people that have to be. Be straight, but don't tell people they have to be (or try to force them to by denying their rights). Be conservative, but don't tell people they have to be.

It's pretty easy, actually.


yep.. pushing your belife on others is probably the core social issue with this country today. "Join us or your damned to hell" and "your a stupid redneck if you belive that" are totaly negative ways of interacting with others. I have been spending a large ammount of my effort into changing my speach away from phrases like "you should do ...."
It's hard for me, because I'm a sysadmin, it's my job to make technical decisions for others, and sometimes I end up saying "no, you should not do that" to people in an effort to protect the security of their data. Negative speech is subtle, and sometimes I just can't think of a good way to say things.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 05:22

Quote:
Hey, I've got this line on a furnished apartment in Puerto Vallarta that you might be interested in!


My spanish is pretty rusty, but I'm down. First 'rita is on me!
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 05:40

Agreed. The problem, as I see it, is that it is impossible to make both sides happy here...

The "liberals" believe that it is an infringement on the rights of gays to not allow them to marry, while the "conservatives" believe it is an infringement on their rights to allow gays to marry.

The "liberals" believe that it is an infringement on the rights of a woman to tell her she cannot have an abortion, while the "conservatives" believe it is an infringement on their rights to allow a woman to have an abortion.

And so on and so on....

How to solve it? I don't know.

The best answer I have been able to come up with for myself is this: I ask myself, "who is being told they may not do something they wish to do? Is it forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do?" In the cases above, the answers are "the liberals" and "no". I long ago decided that it is not my right to tell another person what they may or may not do. So to me, these are fairly simple choices.

And before it even starts:

1) To those of you going on about sullying the institution of marriage: You don't own marriage. It's been around since before Christ. People all around the world get married every day, and God isn't always invited. There's Shinto, Buddhist, etc....
2) "But I feel abortion is wrong...what about my rights....": Don't have an abortion.
3) "I don't want to have to pay taxes for..." : Yeah, and I don't want to pay taxes to drop bombs on other countries. We all have to suck it up sometimes and pay for things we don't like. It sucks but that's the way it is.
4) "Well the media...." : Turn off your TV....

And sorry in advance for having an unpopular opinion.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 05:43

Quote:
Voters who can't appear to get enthusiastic about _anyone_ and who simply vote against a candidate.


Sadly, I think you're right. This was my problem. I had to look at it like genetics, though; you cull out the traits you don't want, and reinforce the ones you do. The next generation you do the same. And again, and again. That's the only way I was able to justify voting for anyone this year.

I realize now that it was a bit naive of me to think that would work.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 06:15

Quote:
Informed citizens who listen to Rush Limbaugh think my choices will be John McCain or Hillary Clinton. What joy there?


I hope you're right, because there, well, I'll actually have to consider who I want to vote for, and not who I want to vote against.
Posted by: cushman

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 08:00

Quote:
3) "I don't want to have to pay taxes for..." : Yeah, and I don't want to pay taxes to drop bombs on other countries. We all have to suck it up sometimes and pay for things we don't like. It sucks but that's the way it is.

I was stating this as a reason I am/vote conservatively. It was not a complaint, just a reason for my viewpoint. You are free to vote for the candidate that doesn't want to drop bombs, and I will vote for the one that cuts welfare.
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 11:35

Quote:
Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Hmmmm. You must have somehow gotten the impression that the Clintons are my pals

Of course, if GWB could talk Bill into serving as his Secretary of State (maybe GWB could offer him a BJ!) it couldn't hurt!

Edit: I don't want to be coy. For those of you whose Internet Service Providers censor terms like B*J*, it would probably help if I spelled out that B*J* really means B*L*O*W J*O*B*

Hope that helps.



Actually, I believe Hillary will be a "shoe in" for the next presidential election (she's my pal ).

Don't worry, you are not being "coy" just "ignorant".

Reporting from "Jesusland" where all of my neighbors are from Chicago, Pennsylvannia, California, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, etc... yet the overwhelming majority (83%) voted Republican ( I guess all "rednecks" aren't originally from "Jesusland").

Jerz
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 14:18

Quote:
The problem, as I see it, is that it is impossible to make both sides happy here...
True. That's why we vote. It's an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. The alternative is that we could have someone in power who "knows best" and tell us all how to live. Believe it or not, neither side wants this. In the US, the people tell the government what to believe by consensus, and while that's not a perfect solution, is the best we have available.

Quote:
The best answer I have been able to come up with for myself is this: I ask myself, "who is being told they may not do something they wish to do? Is it forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do?" In the cases above, the answers are "the liberals" and "no".
I'll give you the first, though I think it's more complicated than that, but the abortion question has much more going on and defies such a simplification. I might regret going into it further, but regarding abortion from the conservative perspective:

Who is being told they may not do something they wish do to? the answer is the child, who has a fundamental right to life. Conservative absolutely believe that an abortion is taking away freedom from a defenseless, living human.

Is it forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do? The argument here could be that a child cannot make the choice for life yet, but then you’d have to extend this for children up to quite a high age, meaning mothers could take their children’s lives up until they were old enough to make that decision for themselves.

Of course, the ultimate question here is who gets to decide whether the unborn are actually living humans who should be protected. This gets back to the question of when society has the right to enforce its morals upon people.

To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery. In that case as well there was the question of whether a slave should be regarded as a human worth protecting. Slave owners felt it was their right to decide what they could do with their property, and from their perspective this made sense. If a slave is only property belonging to a person, then the freedom of the owner should not be abridged. Today that argument is ludicrous because we all know the slaves were humans and the "owners" were infringing on their rights as human beings. That the owners at the time believed their slaves were not to be regarded as human (or at least as equal humans) is of no consequence: the slaves were not property and it was wrong to infringe upon their rights. In this case we see not only does society have the right to enforce its values (the slaves are humans and should be protected by the law), but that regardless of what the prevailing attitude of the time was, we can all agree it was wrong. It’s wrong now and it was wrong then.

None of the above addresses the question Doug brought up in another thread about whether a child's life should be terminated to save him or her from a tortured life, but it illustrates that there are times when the government should step in and that some rights trump other's rights. The conservative believe this is such an issue, whereas liberals do not. I don’t know how else you can decide the answer to this question except by allowing the public to vote.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 14:27

Quote:
But I am affraid it might be even worse:
Probably not. While it is easy to view the US as two fractured "sides" with different beliefs, it's actually a lot more fluid than this. It only appears this way because when we get to vote, we only get two (or three) choices. Perhaps on the issue of gay marriage and abortion the country is slightly conservative, but give peopl a voice about the other things you've mentioned and you'll probably find a different answer.

In the US the public, for good or ill, still drives the process. We may not all get our voices heard the way we like (my frustration), and sometimes we're on the unpopular side (my frustration as well on many issues), but in the end we can say "no" with a semi-equal (due to the electoral college) voice to our fellow citizens. Bush could not run on a ticket of "we're going to institute state sponsered Christianity" and win unless the whole country was made up of not only Christians, but Christians who believe that government should sponser their beliefs explicitly. People might vote their moral values, but we are far, far from a public who meets the above criteria.

This election reveled some things about what the people in the US want; it didn't create those beliefs.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 14:33

Quote:
Just to play Devil's Advocate...just who would you like to vote _for_?

That is a good question. Since I am not now, nor do I expect in future to be, a member of the ultra-rich, I would like to vote for somebody who values the interests of "average" individual humans, families and communities over the interests of corporations and their ultra-rich constituency.

While the Democrats manage to distinguish themselves on some issues, reading a historical review like Phillips' Wealth and Democracy tells me that the Democrats are not to be relied upon -- that they are as addicted to the dollars of corporate special interests as their Republican nemeses.

Ralph Nader? Well, I still have to admire his consistency and his forthright indictment of special interests, but I expect he'd make an ineffective, humorless president.

Who would I like to vote for? Well, Nelson Mandela, I guess, but the word on the street is that he isn't going to run.

The one Democrat who does, I think, still smell like a rose at this point is Jed, er....Howard, Dean. Actually pretty moderate and I could be disappointed by his stance with respect to corporations (if I knew more), but, of any of the players, the one with some convictions. I do not begrudge his ultimate support of the weaker candidacy of Kerry, but nearly admire him for it.

I'd vote for Dean. Will I turn out for Hillary? Not sure.

Some political wisdom says that the failure of Kerry should destroy the right/centrist Democrat position over the next 4 years. From my perspective, the Dems don't have anybody to blame for their mistake of nominating Kerry. But who or what else will emerge from the ashes (if not more DLC-based candidates like Hillary)? I haven't a clue.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 14:46

Quote:
The alternative is that we could have someone in power who "knows best" and tell us all how to live. Believe it or not, neither side wants this.

In reference to your "believe it or not" invitation, I choose "not." Reason being, exit polls show clearly that people who voted Bush overwhelmingly cited "moral issues" as their #1 concern. You don't have to do too much reading between the lines to see that as a clear indication that they want someone at the top who's going to set laws that govern how people live their lives (i.e. God, gays, and guns.) Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.

Quote:
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery.

I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 14:56

Quote:
Actually, I believe Hillary will be a "shoe in" for the next presidential election (she's my pal ).

I suspect you are funnin' with me.

Quote:
Don't worry, you are not being "coy" just "ignorant".

Well, I do have my moments. George is going to need all the help he can get, though, and I had to stretch my thinking a bit to imagine what would motivate Bill to reach out across party lines and give George a hand....

My edit was clearly an expression of Saturday night sore-loser self pity. I think I'll let it stand, though, just so you and I are reminded that I'm not perfect after all. That whole humility thing.

Quote:
Reporting from "Jesusland" where all of my neighbors are from Chicago, Pennsylvannia, California, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, etc... yet the overwhelming majority (83%) voted Republican ( I guess all "rednecks" aren't originally from "Jesusland").

Like the man said: "All generalities are lies." I'm going to bet that if I looked hard enough that I could find somebody on my street -- maybe even in my *building* -- who voted for GWB and who has no immediate plans to pull up stakes and move to Forsyth County.

I expect that there are residents of Jessusland who voted for Kerry and who bristle at the generalization as well. I am not exactly sure just how close we are to transitioning from a representative democracy to a theocracy. What I do know is that we are closer now than we were 6 days ago. I am not sure we'll be using the Jesusland map as a vehicle for contentious discussion 1 week or 1 month from now, but this week it works for me.

When it comes to executing to a plan, and as dopey as Bush & Co often seem, Rove and Co. definitely deserve credit for this one. Clearly the folks who await the rebuilding of the temple weren't the only ones voting for Bush. They are just the ones that put the game away.

So, who do you think is going to win in Iraq?

Edit: I realized that many of you already know I am not perfect, but my dear aunt does (think I am perfect). And while I know that members of the BBS don't find the image of our fearless leader laying a lip lock on another man disturbing, it could really trouble my aunt if ever she stumbled across this BBS (she has Internet access now in here retirement home). Plus, any imagery like that is really the province of the Kitty Kelleys of the world and poorly-supported conspiracy theorists. So, I edited that post and I, personally, need to continue to work for a PG rating in all things. George, my apologies. What can I do to make it up to you?
Posted by: music

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 16:21

Quote:
Quote:
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery.

I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.


That seems unlikely.

The slavery issue was both a moral debate and an economic issue. The abortion debate is conducted almost entirely on moral grounds. There are no states whose economies rely heavily on abortion.

Most Americans are more likely to take up arms to protect their pocketbooks than to advance their religious or moral beliefs, no matter how it may sometimes seem otherwise.

A more relevant current comparison would be the outright banning of all tobacco. No one has seriously proposed this, though there are good arguments to be made. But several states would find such a ban unacceptable -- though perhaps not so unacceptable that they would consider secession in response.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 16:44

Quote:
polls show clearly that people who voted Bush overwhelmingly cited "moral issues" as their #1 concern. You don't have to do too much reading between the lines to see that as a clear indication that they want someone at the top who's going to set laws that govern how people live their lives (i.e. God, gays, and guns.)
I don't think this follows logically at (i.e.: I'm having trouble reading the same thing between the lines that you are). People voted for a candidate who said he would do certain things they wanted done (and it's really only half fair to bring gay marriage into this as Kerry was also against gay marriage), not one they thought would run their lives the best. Yes, many conservatives want a man certain type of faith as them making decisions that affect the country, and yes they wanted someone who with a certain stand on these issues you've identified (as well as some others). This isn't any different from the liberals, who want someone with a different kind of faith (the kind that is either less obvious or nonexistent, but either way does not visibly affect his policy making) and who took a different stand on the issues. Believing that our idea of morality is what drives the laws of our country does not equate to wanting a dictator telling us how to live. Conservatives may want their values reflected in office (as do liberals), but they want it through democracy not dictatorship. The system worked, and it will next time too.

Quote:
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.
I wasn't making the case that the conflicts are the same, only that there are ethical parallels.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 16:48

Quote:
Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.
FWIW, to conservatives the difference between abortion and the death penalty is that abortion is dealing with an innocent life and the death penalty is a guilty one.

It's still a strange coupling that those who are for one are almost invariably against the other.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 16:58

Quote:
Quote:
The alternative is that we could have someone in power who "knows best" and tell us all how to live. Believe it or not, neither side wants this.

In reference to your "believe it or not" invitation, I choose "not." Reason being, exit polls show clearly that people who voted Bush overwhelmingly cited "moral issues" as their #1 concern. You don't have to do too much reading between the lines to see that as a clear indication that they want someone at the top who's going to set laws that govern how people live their lives (i.e. God, gays, and guns.)

Well noticed.

There was a segment on CNN featuring two radio talk show hosts, a liberal and a conservative. They were both proselytize, rude and generally obnoxious, the liberal sounding like a humanities professor impatient with her students, the consertive like an angy preacher. Anyway, what was interesting was what the conservative had to say about the competition (paraphrasing):
Quote:
There are not many liberal talk-radio hosts. They are not interesting. They see everything in shades of gray. We see the world black and white, as all conservatives tend to do.

I think that many Americans are terrified of the big wild world. They didn't care for it, barely acknowledged its existence, untill the rude awakening came on 9/11. What they now need is firm, confident, "unwavering" guidance or an illusion thereof. They don't want nuances, reexamination, "flip-flopping", but solid, set in stone truths: "four legs good, two legs bad". There was not patience for examination of motives that made a Vietnam hero later question the same war very vociferously - he was anty-war, therefore he cannot lead the country in the midst of another war.

It id not help, of course, that Kerry actually did show signs of opportunism.

Quote:
Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.

Including for offenders who were minors not deemed fit to order a beer when they committed the crime. Last time I looked into this, Supreme Court was discussing it (I don't know the result). USA is (or was) the last country in the world with this practice (second to last was China, before it Somalia). According to news, "Anthony Kennedy, appeared to be skeptical about banning death sentences for 16- and 17-year-olds, citing 'chilling' examples of gruesome murders committed by 17-year-olds." Speak about not comprehending the difference between justice, punishment and Old Testament-style revenge.

Quote:
Quote:
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery.

I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.

Indeed. And let's not forget that this previous one was not fully resolved untill a full century after the war.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 17:02

Quote:
it's really only half fair to bring gay marriage into this as Kerry was also against gay marriage

I couldn't have proven my point any better. Bush and Kerry were both of the opinion that "marriage is between a man and a woman." Only Bush was in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Kerry wanted to leave it to the states to decide. A clear example of Bush trying to infuse his own moral code into our government. A President having faith and using that faith to guide his decisions is, in general, not a bad thing. Using that faith to divide the country, win an election, and put in laws which govern morality to an unprecedented level, that's, in my opinion, un-American.

Quote:
Believing that our idea of morality is what drives the laws of our country does not equate to wanting a dictator telling us how to live.

I didn't say dictator. Bush was democratically elected, and clearly represents the opinions of a slight majority of the people who voted (either that, or his other campaign tricks like using fear of terrorism were very effective in making people choose to overlook his obvious theocracy.) In any event, he was the one who pulled the most Americans out to the polls, but you can't tell me that the gay marriage referendums on the ballots didn't help his cause. His use of moral wedge issues is what got him re-elected, and his use of religion as a campaign ploy was despicable. Unfortunately, it's not illegal.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 17:20

Quote:
Indeed. And let's not forget that this previous one was not fully resolved untill a full century after the war.

And is still not resolved.

Bonzi, I cherish your posts on this BBS. I have to say, though, judging from the number of your typos and the time offset, that I suspect that you are *way* more drunk than I (me?).

Have you ever been the the U.S. of A.? It seems that you know about ten times more about the US than most of its citizens. How do you manage that if you have never been here?

If you have never been here, but would like to opine about US craziness with some increased authority, I would like to extend an offer. Come to Seattle for a week and we will jump in the Subaru and go explore Jesusland. I don't have much more to offer than my Ikea couch, but I have slept there successfully on more than one occasion. Oh, a plane ticket? Award seats on United are hard to come by, but I will work with you to figure out *some* sort of ticket -- maybe from Frankfurt or (shudder) from CDG. On me.

Let me know. Thanks for your continuing insights.
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 17:33

Sadly, I've been voting against the lesser of two evils since I was old enough to vote. If Loren thinks 16 years are bad, try nearly that many administrations--not that I actually despised them all---but it does appear that if anyone this great country produces has the sense and moral fiber to be a worthy president of it, s/he also has sense enough to have no desire to be one. Certainly, with the scrutiny of each instant of their private lives and beliefs that's now demanded, I can't imagine anyone with either holding such aspirations!
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 17:46

Quote:
(and it's really only half fair to bring gay marriage into this as Kerry was also against gay marriage)


And Kerry was the one who publicly told a citizen (during the 3rd debate) that regardless of what his religious beliefs were, he felt it wasn't right to legislate them and force them on those who didn't agree. He was, granted, speaking to the topic of abortion when he said this, but I feel it would be fair to assume that smae concept would carry through to other religious beliefs.

Quote:
Quote:
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.
I wasn't making the case that the conflicts are the same, only that there are ethical parallels.



Actually, that was a very weak analogy.
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 17:48

Quote:
sooo, I have been trying to identify the upside:


For a somehat light rejoinder to this queston, see http://michaelmoore.com/
17 reasons...while the topic couldn't be more serious, we can all use a little lightness; "Is it hot in here, or is it me?"
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 17:50

Quote:
Quote:
Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.
FWIW, to conservatives the difference between abortion and the death penalty is that abortion is dealing with an innocent life and the death penalty is a guilty one.

It's still a strange coupling that those who are for one are almost invariably against the other.


Especially given the fact that according to the Bible, nobody is born without sin, and therefore, one could assume, nobody is born innocent. Granted this comes from the non-Christian's knowledge of the Bible, though I have read it...

So, Jeff, how many cells does it take before "life" comes flowing in? The most orthodox of the Jews will collect spilled blood and scraps of flesh because the feel the body must be whole to go to heaven. So when does life start? And do I need to keep my fingernails until I pass on? Please tell me.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 17:52

Quote:
I have to heartily agree with both of the preceeding posts; and most depressingly, I've been voting against the lesser of two evils since I was old enough to vote. If Loren thinks 16 years are bad, try nearly that many administrations--not that I actually despised them all---but it does appear that if anyone this great country produces has the sense and moral fiber to be a worthy president of it, s/he also has sense enough to have no desire to be one. Certainly, with the scrutiny of each instant of their private lives and beliefs that's now demanded, I can't imagine anyone with either holding such aspirations!


Have I told you how nice it is to have you here yet?

And you're right. The person who wants to be president may very well be among those least deserving of the job.....
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 17:55

Quote:
Bonzi, I cherish your posts on this BBS. I have to say, though, judging from the number of your typos and the time offset, that I suspect that you are *way* more drunk than I (me?).

Thank you, Jim!

Actually, I am quite sober now. Discussion on the BBS keeps swirling in my head from the election day, and I am struggling to put some of my side of it in the posted words; there is just so much of it. Also, I seem to be almost dyslexic recently (except when writing code - I guess it is like people not stuttering when they sing :-)

Quote:
Have you ever been the the U.S. of A.? It seems that you know about ten times more about the US than most of its citizens. How do you manage that if you have never been here?

I have been there few times, but not for long: a week in LA, two times a week in NY and a month in Argonne National Laboratory (near Chicago). What surprised me was that it was exactly as I imagined it. Very kind people in a weird country.

Politics in general and civil rights in particular interest me quite a lot. USA cought my then childish attention in the days of Vietnam, and still holds it. Despite Vietnam and my very left leaning, I never saw USA as a threat (the same holds for my country: even in days of Tito's Yugoslavia, military maneuvers always assumed attack from Warsaw block countries); it is beginning to look as one now. On top of this, sometimes I am so disgusted with domestic politics that I prefer following yours

Quote:
If you have never been here, but would like to opine about US craziness with some increased authority, I would like to extend an offer. Come to Seattle for a week and we will jump in the Subaru and go explore Jesusland. I don't have much more to offer than my Ikea couch, but I have slept there successfully on more than one occasion. Oh, a plane ticket? Award seats on United are hard to come by, but I will work with you to figure out *some* sort of ticket -- maybe from Frankfurt or (shudder) from CDG. On me.

CDG would be the best, as I am now on consulting stint at SNCF, Paris.

Seriously, I might take you on your offer once (not ticket, of course, but couch and company while exploring the strange terra incognita occidentalis). Besides, I have heard from multiple reliable sources that Seattle is a place where we decadent European liberals could survive.

Quote:
Let me know. Thanks for your continuing insights.

Thank you, again. I owe a visit to my brother first (he is a diplomat curently in South Africa) and do it in hurry, while he is still there, and in my company back home they forgot what I look like. But I will remember your offer.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 17:55

Quote:
For a somehat light rejoinder to this queston, see http://michaelmoore.com/
17 reasons...while the topic couldn't be more serious, we can all use a little lightness; "Is it hot in here, or is it me?"


Looks like the page moved. It's now at http://michaelmoore.com without the trailing /17....

But now I'm staring at two coffee covered monitors...
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 18:11

Quote:
Sadly, I've been voting against the lesser of two evils since I was old enough to vote. If Loren thinks 16 years are bad, try nearly that many administrations--not that I actually despised them all---but it does appear that if anyone this great country produces has the sense and moral fiber to be a worthy president of it, s/he also has sense enough to have no desire to be one. Certainly, with the scrutiny of each instant of their private lives and beliefs that's now demanded, I can't imagine anyone with either holding such aspirations!

True - political ambitions should disqualify a candidate. Which means that probably the best way to select polititians would be a lottery - something like jury duty.

But this also illustrates another peculiarity of American political life: you actually don't have political parties as we in Europe understand them; it's more like two teams in continous play-off: tactics continuosly changing, players being traded, but essentially just two franchizes doing their lucrative job. We more or less have four or five slots across the political spectrum (demo-christians, social democrats, liberals...) plus some folklore; the difference is in conrete issues, and you pretty well know where each party stands. Granted, the situation is getting a bit more fluid recently on issues like social security, country-wide collective bargaining, immigration...
Posted by: Dignan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 18:32

Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

I'm a liberal. I already have some of my liberal friends saying "You know what? We should all hope that Hillary runs next time, and we can have a Clinton/Obama ticket!"

I've heard that from about a dozen people, and I think there's a lot more of them out there. I can't think of a campaign with less of a chance for success. Hillary is more polarizing than her husband, and Obama is a great guy and could be a big political figure in the future, but I just think that for the time being he's going to put off A LOT of ignorant people in this country.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 18:41

Quote:
And Kerry was the one who publicly told a citizen (during the 3rd debate) that regardless of what his religious beliefs were, he felt it wasn't right to legislate them and force them on those who didn't agree. He was, granted, speaking to the topic of abortion when he said this, but I feel it would be fair to assume that smae concept would carry through to other religious beliefs.
I'll only point out here that I am against the amendment (like Kerry), believe that "marriage" means a man and woman (like Kerry) and am for Civil Unions as an imperfect solution (again like Kerry). Yet I have been told that even that stance is forcing my morals upon other people. So either a) my stance on the legal status of marriage is more reasonable than I've been led to believe, or b) in the case of gay marriage Kerry was not holding to the standard he said when he answered the abortion question.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 18:58

Quote:
Especially given the fact that according to the Bible, nobody is born without sin, and therefore, one could assume, nobody is born innocent.
This depends on how you're using the word "innocent". There is a difference between innocence with regards to human justic and innocence with reards to devine justice. Origional sin means we are disqualified from Heaven because of our nature, but whether that means we are born already disqualified or disqualified for our first sin is more of a theological question (those I most respect say it's the former as you suggest, but I am not convinced). Since we all sin, this isn't a key point though.

Human justice is different, however. If we were to put to death anyone who's sinned, none of us would make it very far. A quick read through Leviticus makes that plain enough- thankfully (from a Christian perspective) God has given us a means of restitution in Jesus Christ (the OT had it in the sacrificial system).

So while an unborn Child may have inherited Origional Sin (based on your theology), this would only extend to devine justice, not human justice. Also, there is evidence that children who die are sent to Heaven, but that's a WHOLE different discussion.

Quote:
So, Jeff, how many cells does it take before "life" comes flowing in?
I really believe it's conception, but certainly sometime before exiting the mother's body for sure. That seems like a very abirtrary distinction.

But the point of devling this was not to argue about abortion, only to say that it's not as simple as conservatives wanting to take away choice. We believe it's protecting life.

Quote:
The most orthodox of the Jews will collect spilled blood and scraps of flesh because the feel the body must be whole to go to heaven.
Christians don't believe this. We believe our bodies will be fully restored so even those who have been creamated are going to be just fine.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 19:02

Quote:
Especially given the fact that according to the Bible, nobody is born without sin, and therefore, one could assume, nobody is born innocent. Granted this comes from the non-Christian's knowledge of the Bible, though I have read it...

You remind me of a local journalist, a nemesis of our Catholic church apparatus (which has strong political ambitions). The guy is very eloquent, experienced, extremely well versed in christian theology (among other things), and atheist. Always fights on their terrain.

Although, hasn't Jesus taken care of the original sin?

Quote:
So, Jeff, how many cells does it take before "life" comes flowing in? The most orthodox of the Jews will collect spilled blood and scraps of flesh because the feel the body must be whole to go to heaven. So when does life start? And do I need to keep my fingernails until I pass on? Please tell me.

Jeff acknowledged somewhere that this argument hinges on when you consider that human life begins. I could understand that someone with a notion of mystical "soul" being "breathed" into us making us distinct from animals believes that this happens at the moment two haploid cells merge their nuclei to form a zygote (however the idea of zygote with a soul might look strange ).

However, that is not the main problem I have with 'pro-lifers': as our kayaking psychologist Jean among others noted, right is doing nothing to lower the number of abortions: on the contrary. They try to supress sex education in schools (except "just say no"), withold money for condom popularization efforts (even as an AIDS-prevention measure), cut money from child care and other support for young single mothers.... And they continue to call pro-choice activists 'pro-abortion'. Liberals are not pro-abortion; abortion is the last resort, and only women involved know the emotional price of it. It is 'pro-lifers' who, in effect, are working to increase the number of abortions (and make them more dangerous for women). But they certainly have the best of intentions, so the consequences don't matter, right?
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 19:08

Quote:
Also, there is evidence that children who die are sent to Heaven

Evidence!? Please, Jeff, enlighten me (and when considering what constitutes evidence, keep in mind that I am by training physicist).

No insult intended, of course.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 19:29

Well, that would be a picturesque combination, but I am affraid that USA is far from being ready for a woman president and non-white vice-president, even without the recent sliding to the right.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 19:44

Quote:
You remind me of a local journalist, a nemesis of our Catholic church apparatus (which has strong political ambitions). The guy is very eloquent, experienced, extremely well versed in christian theology (among other things), and atheist. Always fights on their terrain.


Ummm.... Is that a good thing?
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 19:47

Quote:
Quote:
Also, there is evidence that children who die are sent to Heaven

Evidence!? Please, Jeff, enlighten me (and when considering what constitutes evidence, keep in mind that I am by training physicist).

No insult intended, of course.


Agreed. If nobody has proven the existance of Heaven (and no, personal faith and beliefs don't count as proof) how is there a possibility of evidence of someone arriving there?
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 19:49

Quote:
Quote:
You remind me of a local journalist, a nemesis of our Catholic church apparatus (which has strong political ambitions). The guy is very eloquent, experienced, extremely well versed in christian theology (among other things), and atheist. Always fights on their terrain.


Ummm.... Is that a good thing?

Err, isn't that obvious? He is my favourite.
Posted by: webroach

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 19:52

Quote:
Well, that would be a picturesque combination, but I am affraid that USA is far from being ready for a woman president and non-white vice-president, even without the recent sliding to the right.


Sadly, I think if this ticket were to be elected, we would, in short order, have the Speaker of the House running our country. Sad but true. I think there are too many people in America that would no accept a woman as president and a black man as vice-president. Again, sad, but I think true.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 19:55

Quote:
Evidence!? Please, Jeff, enlighten me (and when considering what constitutes evidence, keep in mind that I am by training physicist).
Sorry, that was a misstatement. To another Christian of similar beliefs, in context this would have been understood to mean "biblical evidenct", which means a biblical passage to support a theological belief.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 20:04

Quote:
Sorry, that was a misstatement. To another Christian of similar beliefs, in context this would have been understood to mean "biblical evidenct", which means a biblical passage to support a theological belief.

I realized this the moment I fired the post, but decided to let it be. Sorry.

So, Dante was wrong?
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 20:21

Quote:
Although, hasn't Jesus taken care of the original sin?

Yes, but only if we trust His death on the cross to do so. There is a lot of thelogical debate on the specifics of this point, but it's pretty clear that a) Jesus died for our sinds, and b) This is received by trusting in Him.

Quote:
However, that is not the main problem I have with 'pro-lifers': as our kayaking psychologist Jean among others noted, right is doing nothing to lower the number of abortions: on the contrary. They try to supress sex education in schools (except "just say no"), withold money for condom popularization efforts (even as an AIDS-prevention measure), cut money from child care and other support for young single mothers....
I'll agree that the church has done a poor job of supporting its stance on abortion by following through. So much time and effort is spent on fighting abortion, I think, that the children are forgotton. With the abortion issue gaining new expsoure in this country, I hope the church re-examines its mission promot life, not just oppose abortion.

Quote:
And they continue to call pro-choice activists 'pro-abortion'.
First off, I've never used that term, here or anywhere else. Not that you were targeting this at me, but this is a REALLY sore spot. I react very strongly when pro-lifers us this term and generally correct them if I'm in a place to do so. I completely understand that virtually no-one is "for" abortion; all it is is a an attempt deamonize the other side. I also think the same thing is true for the term "anti-choice", but generally people don't listen to me when I try to point out that pro-lifers are for choice, just that if it's an issue of life vs. choice that life wins.
Posted by: drakino

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 20:57

Quote:
Sorry, that was a misstatement. To another Christian of similar beliefs, in context this would have been understood to mean "biblical evidenct", which means a biblical passage to support a theological belief.

*Derails the topic a bit*

I think this explains a lot in some of the communication issues that exist between the evolution folks and the creation folks. "Evidence and proof" seems to come from the bible and is widly thought of as fact. So when someone used to this thinking hears evolution is a theory, they have an easier time dismissing it due to the wording. Where as all it really means is the scientific community doens't write something as true 100% fact until the entire thing can be explained and proven repeatedly.

To bring it a bit back, this could be a similar wording problem with the whole gay marriage issue. Christians are used to the word marriage meaning a joining of a man and woman based on how it is done in the bible. While others simply see marriage as the same as a union. You can see this in how people use the word, things like saying "he is practicially married to his job".
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 21:05

Eh, Jeff, if other Christians were like you, we wouldn't have most of these occasionally bitter discusions.

But I notice you didn't comment on the part about "zygote with soul" (OK, you did say elsewhere that you believe that [human] life begins with conception, but that that could be subject to debate).

How contraception fits into this in your opinion? You can guess mine. I think that efforts to depopularize use of condoms in Africa (of which not only Bush is guilty, but also, say, the most recent Nobel Peace Prize laureate) almost amount to mass murder.
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 21:43

Back again to the "we're not worrying about the life that's here, only the putative life to come" issue. I really admire your wide knowledge of our (USA; I'm with the Canadians amd Mexicans on resenting"American" as exclusive for us) history, political system, and issues. There is considerable evidence that high school kids graduating in Virginia, across the river from DC, can't name the last 5 presidents or the current vice-president (isn't THAT an appropriate play on words...), and that much of the rest of the country is worse, though at least the current polarization has waked a few people up....
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 22:21

Quote:
Back again to the "we're not worrying about the life that's here, only the putative life to come" issue.

Sigh, yes.

BTW, what is it that makes Christians (all three descendants of ancient judaism, actually) so obsessed with sex? Somebody once told me that the root is in wanting to be clear on inheritance, tribe membership and such, but that does not sound proportional to the scale of manipulation and supression. Besides, late Middle Ages Europe Christians were in that respects far more tolerant (while, say, Iberian Muslims were more tolerant in most respects). Any ideas?

Quote:
I really admire your wide knowledge of our (USA; I'm with the Canadians amd Mexicans on resenting"American" as exclusive for us) history, political system, and issues.

Thanks. Yes, I will take care when I use 'America', and when 'USA'.

Quote:
There is considerable evidence...



Quote:
...that high school kids graduating in Virginia, across the river from DC, can't name the last 5 presidents or the current vice-president (isn't THAT an appropriate play on words...), and that much of the rest of the country is worse, though at least the current polarization has waked a few people up....

Ignorance has always been right's strong tool... But, as Moore on the page you pointed to notes, this time more people voted for Kerry than for any other president in history, save, alas, GWB. That is something. Perhaps it can be built upon.
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 07/11/2004 23:38

Quote:
Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

I'm a liberal. I already have some of my liberal friends saying "You know what? We should all hope that Hillary runs next time, and we can have a Clinton/Obama ticket!"



I could definately see that and I tend to be a bit conservative these days but Obama is a brilliant, very likeable individual. I hate to say it but Kerry shot himself in the foot when he chose John Edwards for a running mate.... I never liked used car salesmen and this ambulance chaser is no different.

And the Clintons and Obama on the Democratic ticket with some noname running against them... well, I think the 1996 map says it all... Well, perhaps it doesn't say it all but I would be more inclined to vote for Obama than Kerry or Edwards...

Edit: How about Rudy Giuliani with running mate HIllary?
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 01:19

Quote:
I suspect you are funnin' with me.



Quote:
So, who do you think is going to win in Iraq?

Well, ultimately the good people of Iraq only I'm not sure of the cost.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 09:31

A more relevant current comparison would be the outright banning of all tobacco. No one has seriously proposed this, though there are good arguments to be made. But several states would find such a ban unacceptable

I have frequently told people (without any research to support it, but suspect that I am indeed correct) that the government could show a net profit (well, actually, a net reduction of losses) if they simply took everybody in the country who made any part of their living from the tobacco business, computed their average income over the past two years, and then paid them that amount every year for the rest of their life as compensation for banning tobacco. The savings in health costs alone would pay for this.

tanstaafl.
Posted by: Laura

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 09:50

Quote:
as compensation for banning tobacco. The savings in health costs alone would pay for this


The savings wouldn't come until after all of us smokers were free from the addiction which could take a long time. Also the murder rate would rise dramatically and so would incidents of road rage and other acts of violence. Work production would drop sharply and hurt the economy and all of the revenue from the high taxes that we pay on them would disappear.

And while they're at it, they might as well ban alcohol completely which also causes quite a few health problems and costs the country money. That would go over very well I'm sure.
Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 10:01

...they might as well ban alcohol completely...

Been there, done that.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 19:54

Quote:
Work production would drop sharply

Are you telling me that the smokers you know don't spend a third of their time at work wandering around outside? The ones I know certainly do.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 19:57

Quote:
I'll agree that the church has done a poor job of supporting its stance on abortion

You seem to imply that there's one unified church. In fact, if I guess correctly, the single church organization you're a part of, the Southern Baptist Convention, has had severe rifts in it in the past couple of decades due to the conservative takeover in leadership. I seriously doubt that the organizations (actually, I only know of one) that were created are as anti-abortion as the "original", or, in fact, anti-abortion at all.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 20:15

Quote:
How contraception fits into this in your opinion?
I forgot to answer this earlier. Most protestants I know, myself included, have no problem with contraception (as it's pre-conception). The Catholic church has a tradition of being against contraception (except for "natural means") and I know of one protestant minister who is against it (he says he knows of only three others).
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 20:24

Quote:
You seem to imply that there's one unified church.
Not what I meant. This is probably another example of a wrong context word usage. "The church" is routinely used among evangelical Christians to refer to the overall body of Christ, including all Christian churches which have similar beliefs regarding Jesus Christ and His death on the cross to pay for our sins.

Quote:
In fact, if I guess correctly, the single church organization you're a part of, the Southern Baptist Convention, has had severe rifts in it in the past couple of decades due to the conservative takeover in leadership.
I have attended Southern Baptist Churches in the past, but while they have a similar doctrine to mine, I am currently attending a non-denominational church. This church has probably been pro-life since its inception 20 years ago.

Regarding the broader use of the word "church", I think most evangelical churches are today (if not in the past) pro-life. My comment was a concession that evangelical churches that (I believe) are correct in their opposition to abortion are not as aggressive in taking care of children in families after the fact. I didn't mean to imply anything beyond that.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 20:58

Quote:
Quote:
How contraception fits into this in your opinion?
I forgot to answer this earlier. Most protestants I know, myself included, have no problem with contraception (as it's pre-conception). The Catholic church has a tradition of being against contraception (except for "natural means") and I know of one protestant minister who is against it (he says he knows of only three others).


I have to agree, this does seem to be largely the domain of the Papacy and Catholic adherents, though certainly there are some more (conservative isn't really the right word, and neither is radical) Christians who keep their children out of health classes for reasons of/related to it.

I can tell you that before college I spent 13 years including kindergarten in Roman Catholic schools, (and nursery school at a Presbyterian church) and I was required in high school to take health class, and sexual health was part of that curriculum; A survey of world religions was also required during that 4 years. Biology was one of the subjects I didn't care for, so I probably didn't take as much away as i did from Physics or Chemistry, but I can also tell you that I don't recall a denial of evolution in my science classes.

In that regard, my religious education was perhaps more "liberal" than (if all the hype is to be believed, and I'm not sure it is) a public education in, say, Kansas.

Now, the flipside is I can certainly remember an opposition to abortion during that time as far as what we learned, and, at least in religion class, we were encouraged in the direction of abstinence. So in that regard, I guess it was rounded, a "here's how you should live your life, here's what you need to know about life" education.

The surprising thing is that during high school I had a corporatist, fiscally and socially conservative philosophy, which went against the current of the social justice type of class I took as a junior, and now, years later, I'm on the other side.

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 20:59

Quote:
This is probably another example of a wrong context word usage. "The church" is routinely used among evangelical Christians to refer to the overall body of Christ

No, that's (somewhat) common usage, and I understood. But then you said that "the church has done a poor job supporting its stance on abortion", implying that there was a single stance. There is not.
Posted by: Dylan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 21:06

Quote:
Instead of realizing that a very large portion of this country disagrees with their views, they have to pull an elitist view that everyone that doesn't live in a major city is stupid, ignorant or a rednecks (actual quotes from editorials at major papers this week) or was tricked into voting not only for Bush, but for Republicans across the board.



from other sources...

Quote:
Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.


Quote:
Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection


How do you explain these numbers except for ignorance or they were tricked?
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 08/11/2004 22:56

Quote:
How do you explain these numbers except for ignorance or they were tricked?

Some of it IS willful ignorance:'don't confuse me with the facts...', some is apathetic ignorance--following the issues takes time and thought, and then there's the other half of the normal curve. As noted previously, the majority of U. S. citizens are out of touch with the country's stance in the world and with the world's perception of us. Today's Fact of the Day in the Scotsman (online) is a paragraph on the history of Montana. It just struck me; how likely are we to find something similar about them in our local rag?

Along another line:

Quote:
BTW, what is it that makes Christians (all three descendants of ancient judaism, actually) so obsessed with sex?

To some degree, most societies are; it is a very powerful life-force, if not, as in Freud's theories, the dominant one, and hard to separate from survival of the species. The feminist view, which holds a lot of validity, also suggests that, especially in the cultures you mention, the sexual taboos keep women in their place: barefoot and pregnant. The U.S. culture is even more ambivalent about it than most; it's used to sell everything from cars and blue jeans to toothpaste, and these days you can find any deviation or degradtion of it you care to imagine online, but we are if anything becoming even more ambivalent and confused about it as a result. As I think you're suggesting, that ambivalence and fear is at the root of a lot of the cultural values clashes; it's not just Viet Nam we're refighting in a new form, it's the 60's and the Sexual Revolution.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 11:58

Quote:
But yes, I've never liked how the liberal media, which controls near everything we see and hear,

Liberal media? The one that gave Bush a pass on nearly *everything* that happened in his first term? That didn't have the cojones to ask any insightful questions? Crikey. Conservatives in the US have got to get over their "liberal media" thing. If you want to see what real liberal media is, get the heck out of Dodge, and take a look at media in places like the Netherlands, Canada, or Britain. Mass media in the US is not liberal, by any stretch of the means.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 12:05

Quote:
Quote:
I think Jim was intending to use that reference to somehow refer to those people who voted for Bush in a serious (but flippant) manner. I think this because earlier in his post he said that those who voted for Bush (according to the 2.5 issues) "listened to the instructions of their pastors". So in his eyes, this places them in "Jesusland".


Do people honestly believe it was only those 2.5 issues that swayed voters? Are those seen as the biggest contributors to the votes or what?

No, I think Jim got it wrong, there... he missed the "I'm the only one that can keep you safe" issue, so it's really 3.5 issues that I think people were voting on.

Quote:
Basically, I'm confused why I see people (on this forum and on our internal Usenet server at work) think that the GGG (to quote somebody from a different thread) were the only reasons somebody would vote for Bush.

Because everything else he's done has been a failure when you look at the facts? (Those have been hashed out so many times before that I'll not repeat them here.)
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 15:52

Quote:
Most protestants I know, myself included, have no problem with contraception (as it's pre-conception). The Catholic church has a tradition of being against contraception (except for "natural means") and I know of one protestant minister who is against it (he says he knows of only three others).

I expected your opinion would be along these lines, of course, but I am somewhat surprised that it is shared with most of protestants. Granted, my only source of information were efforts by Bush&Co to supress efforts to popularize use of condoms, to the extent that they witheld aid from AIDS-fighting programs that even mention condoms. I consider such policy, as I said, murderous.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 16:04

Quote:
Now, the flipside is I can certainly remember an opposition to abortion during that time as far as what we learned, and, at least in religion class, we were encouraged in the direction of abstinence. So in that regard, I guess it was rounded, a "here's how you should live your life, here's what you need to know about life" education.

I am not against mentioning advantages of abstinence at all, just against preaching it as the only possible way. For example, a few months ago an African politician (I don't remember who) drew fire from some liberals because he was 'too reserved' towards use of condoms in anti-AIDS campaign. What the guy was saying was, essentially: "The best way to avoid AIDS is through abstinence or strict monogamy; failing that, and I know many of you will, *please* make sure to always use condoms!". Fair enough, I would say (needle sharing was not mentioned because his country is not rich enough for that kind of vice).

Quote:
The surprising thing is that during high school I had a corporatist, fiscally and socially conservative philosophy, which went against the current of the social justice type of class I took as a junior, and now, years later, I'm on the other side.

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.

So, you saw the light, if I understand correctly
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 16:13

Yeah, liberal media like Fox News...

But CNN seemed to be relatively objective, in that bland 'balanced' way. They drew fire from liberals for giving too much time to operations in Iraq and their people 'embedded' there, but I did not feel that was done in overly propagandistic way. After all, families of all those boys and girls in Iraq will whatch to every frame and listen to every sound from there, and CNN needs viewers, too
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 16:34

Quote:
Granted, my only source of information were efforts by Bush&Co to supress efforts to popularize use of condoms, to the extent that they witheld aid from AIDS-fighting programs that even mention condoms.
I'm interested to know what that was about; I've not heard of anything like that. I can't see that this would be an attempt to get votes from conservative Christians, but perhaps there is some fiscal conservatism in view? As I said I really know nothing about it. I do know that AIDS is ravaging African at the moment and we should be doing everything possible to stop it, so what you’re saying is cause for concern.

The youth ministers I know (who deal with the issue of per-marital sex more than anyone in the Christian church) certainly encourage abstinence, however if they know a person is going to be sexually active, certainly they’ll encourage protection. No one wants the spread of STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

I suppose there is a big question of sex education in school. I’m not really on top of the issue (not having kids in school), but I guess the issue is whether the state is teaching children the type of sexual responsibility the parents want. I remember going through it all several times when I was in school and thinking the whole thing was pretty much a joke. My mother (a much more liberal person than I am who never really encouraged abstinence for me) also felt the sex education I received was not too helpful. I don’t think I’ll fret over it too much though (I reserve the right to feel differently in 16 or so years); I assume that I’ll have a relationship with my children strong enough that I can provide them with whatever information I feel is lacking in the public education (if my children are publicly schooled, that is).
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 16:39

Quote:
Some of it IS willful ignorance:'don't confuse me with the facts...', some is apathetic ignorance--following the issues takes time and thought,

Exactly

Quote:
and then there's the other half of the normal curve.

Delicate wording of the day!

Quote:
Quote:
BTW, what is it that makes Christians (all three descendants of ancient judaism, actually) so obsessed with sex?

To some degree, most societies are; it is a very powerful life-force, if not, as in Freud's theories, the dominant one, and hard to separate from survival of the species. The feminist view, which holds a lot of validity, also suggests that, especially in the cultures you mention, the sexual taboos keep women in their place: barefoot and pregnant. The U.S. culture is even more ambivalent about it than most; it's used to sell everything from cars and blue jeans to toothpaste, and these days you can find any deviation or degradtion of it you care to imagine online, but we are if anything becoming even more ambivalent and confused about it as a result. As I think you're suggesting, that ambivalence and fear is at the root of a lot of the cultural values clashes; it's not just Viet Nam we're refighting in a new form, it's the 60's and the Sexual Revolution.

Agreed, but I was meaning speciffically dogmas of these three religions, as opposed to, say, Helenistic religion(s), or many of Asian ones. Social status of women was (is) hardly better in those cultures, but their outlook on sex was in wide spectrum from that of harmless entertainment to ritualistic to mystic. No shame, no sin.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 17:08

FWIW, most churches I've attended view sex as a good thing: the most intimate of acts, reserved for the union of marriage. Sex is not sin, or even close to it; using it for the wrong purposes is. I don't know of anywhere in the bible where marital sex is even implied to be sinful or unhealthy (except for perhaps regarding activity during a woman's menstruation in the OT law- but there's a lot more to that than sexual activity). I realize that there are some Christians who've regarded sex as necessary only for the bearing of children, but this is VERY hard to support from the perspective of the bible. What I (and most Christians I know) come away with is that God intended sex to build/show intimacy between marital partners in a unique and special way.

As a matter of fact, I think the only places where the bible is explicit and obvious regarding sexual sin is regarding homosexuality, sex with relatives, affairs, and lust. Even the ban on pre-marital sex isn't explicit that I know of, (though I do believe it falls out naturally from the study of a marriage covenant). So for the Christian, nothing about sex is really sinful, only what we consider to be the abuse of it.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 17:10

A bit of Googling refreshed my memory and showed me wrong: Bush was insisting on 'abstinence-only programs' in countering AIDS, but changed his mind this summer; condoms are now OK, even in USA. Money (and condoms) were (and still are) cut for those institutions that mentioned abortion in their family-planning programs. Condoms are in Africa often distributed and their use promoted (both as an AIDS-prevention and family-planning device) by clinics that either provide or inform about abortion. Closing them down has several effects: more AIDS and other STDs, more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions (but in not even rudimentarily hygienic conditions of those clinics).
Posted by: genixia

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 17:45

My wife received this in her email recently...

Quote:
President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women:Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case studies from Hager's practice.

His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurateassertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's livesor to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and researchmust not be influenced by anti-abortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.


If neoconservative militarism was the theme for his first term, it certainly appears that neoconservative religon is going to be the theme for his second.
Posted by: Heather

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 09/11/2004 18:11

Quote:
My wife received this in her email recently...

Quote: {another trainwreck and imposition on women's health courtesy of the shrub and his cronies}


<heavy sarcasm tempered with rage>

Oh I'm sorry, does the silly little bint think she's got a right to be regarded as something more than a fsck hole, incubator, and milk maid?

The poor woman, seems to think she's capable of thinking and controlling something so personal as her crotch.

</sarcasm>
Posted by: Daria

(much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 19:02

Quote:
Quote:
Now, the flipside is I can certainly remember an opposition to abortion during that time as far as what we learned, and, at least in religion class, we were encouraged in the direction of abstinence. So in that regard, I guess it was rounded, a "here's how you should live your life, here's what you need to know about life" education.

I am not against mentioning advantages of abstinence at all, just against preaching it as the only possible way. For example, a few months ago an African politician (I don't remember who) drew fire from some liberals because he was 'too reserved' towards use of condoms in anti-AIDS campaign. What the guy was saying was, essentially: "The best way to avoid AIDS is through abstinence or strict monogamy; failing that, and I know many of you will, *please* make sure to always use condoms!". Fair enough, I would say (needle sharing was not mentioned because his country is not rich enough for that kind of vice).



Sure. And that was basically the education I got.

Quote:

Quote:
The surprising thing is that during high school I had a corporatist, fiscally and socially conservative philosophy, which went against the current of the social justice type of class I took as a junior, and now, years later, I'm on the other side.

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.

So, you saw the light, if I understand correctly


Well, despite the collapse of the basic steel industry around Pittsburgh when I was a kid, some other industries were suriviving, and I hadn't put all the pieces together.

The corporatist point of view seems to be that it's ok for high-level executives to profit as production is downsized or moved offshore. When steel was "going down" locally there wasn't massive profit-taking on the part of executives; The industry was legitimately hurting, and a lot of people lost their jobs as the domestic industry contracted.

tonyc was here this week and can no doubt attest to me pointing out several places which when I was young had steel mills covering them, and that wasn't even a majority of such local former mills.

Westinghouse Electric started shedding jobs later; The East Pittsburgh Works ended up being sold and reused as an industrial park. Copious Westinghouse facilities now sit empty or underused locally. Even this wasn't so much an issue; They too were in trouble. But then things were somewhat turned around as Westinghouse bought CBS... only to spin off the industrial assets. Westinghouse will never rise again to what it once was, and more jobs (they had a local R&D center) were lost in the process. Still, I hadn't totally lost the corporatist bent, but continued industrial downfall brought me around.

Today, Levi's Jeans production has all been moved offshore. It's nearly impossible to get a pair of shoes made in the U.S.; Expensive shoes might still come from Europe, some less expensive stuff is from Brazil, and everything else is from China.

Same deal with most toy production; Tonka stuff is now made elsewhere; One major competitor from the days of die cast metal toys, Nylint, went out of business a few years back.

For that matter, go in Wal-Mart and see what you can find that was made in this country. Remember when they used to advertise about saving American jobs? Did you notice how they haven't in quite a while? And we, all of us Americans collectively, look for cheap cheap cheap, and are buying ourselves right out of our own jobs. I won't say I'm better than anyone else; While I've started looking harder to find American-made things, or at least things made where I know the working conditions are likely to be reasonable, I know I'm guilty of buying things on price, recently even.

Am I under any delusion that this is Bush's fault? Not hardly. But the problem is, what do you do for the people who were turned out? We created bodies of non-skilled, semi-skilled, and skilled-but-priced-out-of-the-market unemployed labor, who now are often forced into trying to support their families on the barest wages, unable to afford health care.

Here's where I'm looking to the government for an answer, and I'm not seeing anything from this administration.

And here's where I have my disconnect with cushman:

Quote:
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault.


Did these people screw up by not being able to foretell the oncoming collapse of these industries? Did they screw up by not being able to keep their medical insurance when they lost their jobs and had to find positions which would pay for either that coverage, or their food and shelter, and then got sick? Where is the line as far as personal responsibility?

Looking to the eastern part of the state, what had been Western Electric became AT&T Microelectronics, and then Lucent, and finally Agere. 3 factories stretching from Reading to Allentown were not enough to satiate the appetite of the new technological economy, and more plants were being built or bought, including in Mexico and Singapore. Then, the market faltered, and lo, over the next couple years all 3 plants in Pennsylvania lost their chip fab lines, and it ended up being done elsewhere. When business is good enough that your employer is struggling to keep up with demand, do you worry that your job and all the jobs around you will be gone in mere months?

Quote:

I do not like my tax dollars going towards social programs that are ineffective or inefficient.



Me either. But, I prefer they be made efficient, and others seem to prefer they just be cut. (for instance, in another post:
Quote:

I was stating this as a reason I am/vote conservatively. It was not a complaint, just a reason for my viewpoint. You are free to vote for the candidate that doesn't want to drop bombs, and I will vote for the one that cuts welfare.


and not for instance one who fixes welfare.)

Quote:
I should not be forced to give to what is basically charity. I can do that just fine on my own.


After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

And as far as "well, I don't have the money *now*, so I can't give it to charity *now*", which was one reply I heard while talking to people locally, I asked "so you wouldn't buy a house if you didn't have the money for it now, right?"

I will freely admit to being a liberal, and to being a prick, though really these are unrelated. I was a prick long before I was even slightly liberal. But I don't feel bad about being a prick in the cases where I am seeing no personal benefit as a result of it.
Posted by: Daria

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 19:39

Quote:
While I've started looking harder to find American-made things, or at least things made where I know the working conditions are likely to be reasonable, I know I'm guilty of buying things on price, recently even.


Most recent case of sadness here, incidentally: front porch light burned out. I wanted either low-insect-attracting or compact fluorescent.

Sylvania Osram incandescents are made in St. Marys, PA... except the low-insect ones, which came from somewhere 3rd-world-ish. Every compact fluorescent, Sylvania and otherwise in (I think it was Lowe's) was from China.

My front porch has 2 60 watt incandescents in it now. So, to save jobs I have to waste power and/or attract bugs.
Posted by: cushman

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 19:44

Quote:
Quote:
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault.

Did these people screw up by not being able to foretell the oncoming collapse of these industries? Did they screw up by not being able to keep their medical insurance when they lost their jobs and had to find positions which would pay for either that coverage, or their food and shelter, and then got sick? Where is the line as far as personal responsibility?

Hey, shat happens. I myself am from a family where we lived below the poverty line for many years. My wife is the same. I grew up in northern Maine where I witnessed the decline of the small time farmer (grandfather and uncles included), the poor job market, and the closure of an Air Force base. All of these factors affected the local economy negatively. My father, a contractor, began having health problems when I was about 12. What he did was quit the construction business, go to college and get a degree in mathematics (my mom supported our family with a job as an administrative assistant). He then started teaching school as an alternative to his old labor-intensive job. In the 70's my dad moved to North Carolina where there was a construction boom so he could support his new family. You have to have your own backup plans. I'm sure you aren't relying on Social Security for your retirement, are you?

Quote:
Quote:

I do not like my tax dollars going towards social programs that are ineffective or inefficient.


Me either. But, I prefer they be made efficient, and others seem to prefer they just be cut. (for instance, in another post:
Quote:

I was stating this as a reason I am/vote conservatively. It was not a complaint, just a reason for my viewpoint. You are free to vote for the candidate that doesn't want to drop bombs, and I will vote for the one that cuts welfare.


and not for instance one who fixes welfare.)

Where is the incentive to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and work hard for your own good when you know that you have a government that will support you if you cannot? Especially when you buy into the viewpoint that it is a recurring cycle.

Quote:
Quote:
I should not be forced to give to what is basically charity. I can do that just fine on my own.

After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

This is an interesting viewpoint. I think this would actually be a good start.
Posted by: Daria

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 19:48

Quote:
While I've started looking harder to find American-made things, or at least things made where I know the working conditions are likely to be reasonable, I know I'm guilty of buying things on price, recently even.



Ok, this is now 2 replies to myself. I suck. Anyway, someone pointed out in response to a thread on a mailing list about a Pittsburgh historical topic where the closure in the last 5-6 years of a local coke plant, that perhaps it was better (for us) if the heavily polluting industrial processes moved offshore. The person who said it was a political moderate who works for state government.

After considerable thought, I decided that wasn't true. Despite recent dilution of environmental protections, there'd still be less environmental damage from doing it here than in China or many other 3rd world countries. And the processes aren't moving to area with good environmental protections, they're moving to China... but we all share an environment.

Certainly televisions aren't as dire as they were; for a while only Zenith sets were made in the U.S.; Now Sony makes sets in a plant in New Stanton, PA, which was built for Chrysler and opened finally 4 years late as a Volkswagen assembly plant.
Posted by: Daria

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 20:00

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault.

Did these people screw up by not being able to foretell the oncoming collapse of these industries? Did they screw up by not being able to keep their medical insurance when they lost their jobs and had to find positions which would pay for either that coverage, or their food and shelter, and then got sick? Where is the line as far as personal responsibility?

Hey, shat happens. I myself am from a family where we lived below the poverty line for many years. My wife is the same. I grew up in northern Maine where I witnessed the decline of the small time farmer (grandfather and uncles included), the poor job market, and the closure of an Air Force base. All of these factors affected the local economy negatively. My father, a contractor, began having health problems when I was about 12. What he did was quit the construction business, go to college and get a degree in mathematics (my mom supported our family with a job as an administrative assistant). He then started teaching school as an alternative to his old labor-intensive job. In the 70's my dad moved to North Carolina where there was a construction boom so he could support his new family. You have to have your own backup plans. I'm sure you aren't relying on Social Security for your retirement, are you?



Nope. But just because I have time to plan, and people to fall back on, doesn't mean everyone does. Moving to find work isn't free either, sometimes you need money to get money, and when you don't have it, no one wants to loan it to you.

Quote:

Where is the incentive to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and work hard for your own good when you know that you have a government that will support you if you cannot? Especially when you buy into the viewpoint that it is a recurring cycle.


And what happens when you're so screwed that you can't even get that far? If you're a single parent with a kid, for instance, and no relatives you can pawn the kid off on for a day, how do you go work? And, just to cut off whatever silly discussion might follow, let's say it's a widow whose spouse died in Iraq or something. You can't just take the kid to work, having someone random not related to you helping is... public assistance, right?

Quote:
Quote:

After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

This is an interesting viewpoint. I think this would actually be a good start.


I don't think anyone will buy it, which is a shame, because I think a lot of us are really in it for the same ends, but disagree on how we will get there. There are certainly "screw em, let em fend for themselves" people, but I'd argue there are far fewer of those than people who just don't want people living on the dole, and really, neither do I. But I think the flipside is we're sort of screwed now, we have semi-effective government programs, and semi-effective private programs, and the continuing battle over which way we should move to find a real solution is very academic and not actually *doing* anything.

Here, I feel powerless. At work, when things get deadlocked, well, I have enough powers that I can often walk away for a while, come back, and say "while you were arguing about it, I fixed the problem. If you decide you don't like the way I did it, you're welcome to fix it another way, but I'm not going to break it for you while you do, I'm done now.", and while it's often suboptimal, it beats flopping around trying to find direction forever. Here, well, no one of us has the power to move things. Me putting all my money into the government or you putting all of yours into charity would just screw us, and not actually make any difference.

Edit: put back missing quote tag
Posted by: JeffS

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 20:12

Quote:
I don't think anyone will buy it
More than that, I think it would be difficult to determine exactly what the magic number for each program is that means it has "enough". I fear the arguments would simply relocate rather than go away.

That being said, I think it's a good idea and would be worth a shot.
Posted by: Daria

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 20:15

Quote:
Quote:
I don't think anyone will buy it
More than that, I think it would be difficult to determine exactly what the magic number for each program is that means it has "enough". I fear the arguments would simply relocate rather than go away.


Well, you'd have to codify benchmarks and measuring techniques into the law or what would happen was peple with agendas either way would just change how they measured to support the we are (better/worse) conclusion they sought. And even then keeping people honest would be hard.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 20:15

Well, there's some defined number (or other metric) that the government is throwing at it now.
Posted by: Daria

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 20:16

Quote:
Well, there's some defined number (or other metric) that the government is throwing at it now.


Sure, but even if they meet it, your tax money would instead be allocated out of the general fund for something else, not be returned to you.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 20:46

Quote:
Sure, but even if they meet it, your tax money would instead be allocated out of the general fund for something else, not be returned to you.
Sure. He wasn't arguing against your idea, only my argument against your idea.

And he's right, but I'd still bet those figures would come under a lot of fire.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 20:49

Here's a problem:

How do you determine how much is being given away in charity? Have the charitable orgs report the money they're using? That's kind of self-defeating, as that that much more money they won't have from the government. Tax reports? The givers often don't know exactly how their donations are being used. I'm sure I could go on if I felt like it.
Posted by: Daria

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 20:54

I don't care how much is being given away in charity. I care if the needs are being met. If it took the government $10k to meet needs that charity can do for $3k, then, well, $3k it is, if the needs are in fact being met.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 21:08

Quote:
Quote:
After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

This is an interesting viewpoint. I think this would actually be a good start.

How is this significantly different than existing tax incentives for charitable donations?

-Mike
Posted by: Daria

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 21:17

In other cases they give you a tax credit, e.g. your taxable income is reduced, and there are weird rules and games you can play.

In this case you simply wouldn't be charged tax for this purpose. You'd be eligible for whatever tax credit you might otherwise, the point is not to change the tax code, the point is to meet a need, if possible outside the government's budgeting powers, and having done so, allow reaping of the reward for it.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 09/11/2004 22:43

Quote:
In other cases they give you a tax credit, e.g. your taxable income is reduced, and there are weird rules and games you can play.

In this case you simply wouldn't be charged tax for this purpose. You'd be eligible for whatever tax credit you might otherwise, the point is not to change the tax code, the point is to meet a need, if possible outside the government's budgeting powers, and having done so, allow reaping of the reward for it.


So would you have to prove that you gave in order to be eligible for the tax rebate? I guess you are saying no, that the tax rate would simple be lowered as the "need" was met by whoever felt like it. I suppose that is consistent with libertarian goals. Of course as a liberal I don't see it ever happening (and I suspect you don't either). Those who have the most to give are the least likely to (they have the most incentive not to due to being out of touch with the needs of those who most desperately need the assistance). Not to mention that if the scheme doesn't work you are penalizing those who did try to help by taxing them regardless.

If you do attempt to verify that someone at least attempted to give by setting some minimum gift percentage to be eligible for the tax cut then you have all the same game-ability and other issues that the current tax incentives have.

-Mike
Posted by: genixia

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 10/11/2004 02:03

What I don't get is why people are so vocally against federal social programmes in this country, preferring instead for charity to attempt to pick up the slack, yet remain silent when charities in Afghanistan are leaving because the US military can't keep them safe but can provide (US federal tax dollar-supported) social programmes for Afghanis..
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 10/11/2004 02:52

Quote:
No, I think Jim got it wrong, there... he missed the "I'm the only one that can keep you safe" issue, so it's really 3.5 issues that I think people were voting on.

I won't disagree. I think that the reprehensible fear-mongering had its desired effect on some relations of mine, certainly. So in terms of what contributed to the vote, I think 3.5 is about right.

What moved my exasperation over the 2.5? Well, Bush/Cheney probably deserve some cred on their anti-gay/anti-abortion/pro-gun positions evern if they don't really lose sleep over those. At the same time it is darned hard to find any Republicans offering a credible defense for many Bush/Cheney actions including the biggest clusterfuck of all (Iraq) and I hear a lot of people saying -- yeah, quoted in the newspaper and on radio -- "well, gosh, we don't really care about all of those nasty particulars, we just know that hand of God is on his shoulder". Moral issues! I can't believe people say that. Of course, these are the people who still think George found the WMD, so what am I to expect?

Anyhow, I guess my shocked 2.5 disbelief is aimed at the "God's hand" evangelical turnout that pushed this one into Satan's win column. As some angry wag said, red state Republicans have been punked by blue state Republicans. Well, if that ain't the work of the Devil, I don't know *what* is.

And from the standpoint of a strategy that milked the evangelical base, I am guessing that, when the votes are in, Rove will once again win the Evil Genius award for targeted ballot initiatives in swing states that got the vote out over and above the national fear-mongering. And I should add back your comment:

Quote:
Because everything else he's done has been a failure when you look at the facts? (Those have been hashed out so many times before that I'll not repeat them here.)

Sigh. Yup.
Posted by: Daria

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 10/11/2004 02:55

Quote:
Quote:
In other cases they give you a tax credit, e.g. your taxable income is reduced, and there are weird rules and games you can play.

In this case you simply wouldn't be charged tax for this purpose. You'd be eligible for whatever tax credit you might otherwise, the point is not to change the tax code, the point is to meet a need, if possible outside the government's budgeting powers, and having done so, allow reaping of the reward for it.


So would you have to prove that you gave in order to be eligible for the tax rebate? I guess you are saying no, that the tax rate would simple be lowered as the "need" was met by whoever felt like it.


Correct.
Quote:
I suppose that is consistent with libertarian goals. Of course as a liberal I don't see it ever happening (and I suspect you don't either).


I don't, but it would also satisfy my goal of meeting the need; I'm not fussy about how it's met.

Quote:
Those who have the most to give are the least likely to (they have the most incentive not to due to being out of touch with the needs of those who most desperately need the assistance).


That's not clear to me, though I think many of the people who are giving might give more in other circumstances (and these might not be those)

Quote:
Not to mention that if the scheme doesn't work you are penalizing those who did try to help by taxing them regardless.


Understood.

Quote:

If you do attempt to verify that someone at least attempted to give by setting some minimum gift percentage to be eligible for the tax cut then you have all the same game-ability and other issues that the current tax incentives have.


I don't propose to solve that issue. I'm not sure it can be solved.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: (much less) Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (with much more ramble) - 10/11/2004 03:06

Quote:
What I don't get is why people are so vocally against federal social programmes in this country,

I was going to say something like "Most everybody in the US already knows how to sing 'Onward Christian Soldiers'", but the Afganis haven't yet so they *need* the programs.

Oh, that's not a good answer. I don't know what is. Anybody?

Oh, but I see we haven't lost our unique perspective:
"It is not what you do, but who you are that the extremists hate," he says. "That is what people have discovered in Iraq. Now they are learning it here."
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 11/11/2004 01:10

Quote:
BTW, what is it that makes Christians (all three descendants of ancient judaism, actually) so obsessed with sex?


Wanted to get back to this, but as I'm no Talmudic scholar, I wanted to check with the source, which meant catching up wth my co-ex-wife. She reinforced my impression that for the time (and yet, for the Middle East) Jewish law was remarkably liberal regarding women and sex. At least women HAD some rights, as opposed to being regarded as chattel...! A new Fact of the Day: It is in Jewish law that a man has a moral duty to sexually satisfy his wife...what a concept.

And Christ was a pretty tolerant guy, as demonstrated by the story of the woman taken in adultery; I know zip about the Koran's stance. But as in the other cases, I suspect, the further one gets away from the original ideology, the more corrupted the principles become in codification and practice.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 11/11/2004 03:15

Quote:
And Christ was a pretty tolerant guy, as demonstrated by the story of the woman taken in adultery
More than that, the fact that he spoke to and taught women directly was very progressive for the time. He was more than tolerant; he was empowering.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 11/11/2004 21:27

Quote:
FWIW, most churches I've attended view sex as a good thing: the most intimate of acts, reserved for the union of marriage. Sex is not sin, or even close to it; using it for the wrong purposes is. [...] I realize that there are some Christians who've regarded sex as necessary only for the bearing of children, but this is VERY hard to support from the perspective of the bible. What I (and most Christians I know) come away with is that God intended sex to build/show intimacy between marital partners in a unique and special way.

Hm, then I must have been too exposed to those some Christian (but then, I am here surrounded by Catholics... )

This almost makes sense: if we take the formal marriage as the only way of expresing commitment between partners, and given that sex was until recently more or less inevitably leading to pregnancy, limiting sex to married couples is not entirely unreasonable.

But then, I don't think that commitment equals marriage, in either direction, so for me one of two premises does not hold. Contraception removes the other.

You are right, it is prevention of "sex for wrong purposes" or in "wrong circumstances", so we get everything from Ashcroft covering sculpture of Justice and that stupid uproar over equaly stupid Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" stunt, to fundamentalist Jews in Jerusalem calling their American guests "Nazis" for women and men praying together at the Wailing Wall, to burqhas and Talibans stoning women for infractions they were not even aware of.

I wanted to go on about women being threated as father's (or brother's) then husband's propetry, non-virgins being 'damaged goods' (even if being raped and even now) etc, but somehow I have trouble puting it clearly. Some other time.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 12/11/2004 01:19

This almost makes sense: if we take the formal marriage as the only way of expresing commitment between partners, and given that sex was until recently more or less inevitably leading to pregnancy, limiting sex to married couples is not entirely unreasonable.


Dragi, that is insightful. I had never considered it from that perspective before. It gives me more tolerance towards what I had always felt were excessively puritannical attitudes towards sex and marriage traditionally held by religious practitioners.

tanstaafl.
Posted by: Daria

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 16/11/2004 01:40

Quote:

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.


I think I know now who I want to run in 2008, but it will never happen.


He spoke plain and simple and I began to understand
I was listening to quite a man, talking to me.
I began to see...
We need Jimmy Carter!
Why settle for less?
America --
Once and for all, why not the best?
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 16/11/2004 10:45

Quote:
This almost makes sense: if we take the formal marriage as the only way of expresing commitment between partners, and given that sex was until recently more or less inevitably leading to pregnancy, limiting sex to married couples is not entirely unreasonable.


Dragi, that is insightful. I had never considered it from that perspective before.

Likewise. This is only the second time I've heard this argument, the last was just a few months ago, during a discussion with a friend I was visiting in Boston.

Of course, it's still wise to remember that no method of birth control, save abstinance or complete removal of body parts, is 100% effective (says the guy that beat the <1% failure rate of an IUD). Not all abstinance is due to puritanical reasoning. Sadly, it's the puritans who seem to push for it the most (to the exclusion of safe-sex education, and the detriment of society), giving it a worse rap than it should have.
Posted by: jmwking

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 16/11/2004 12:31

Quote:
Of course, it's still wise to remember that no method of birth control, save abstinance or complete removal of body parts, is 100% effective (says the guy that beat the <1% failure rate of an IUD).

Reminds me of a couple of friends of mine: They had two kids. Happy family. She went on the pill. They had their third kid. She had her tubes tied. They had their fourth kid. She had a hysterectomy. No more kids. Still a happy, if larger, family.

-jk
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) - 16/11/2004 15:54

Reminds me of "Nine Months Blues" by Peggy Seeger (from "Period Pieces"); the marriage discussion reminded me of "Darling Annie", from the same record.

Actually, the Seegers and related folks covered awfull lot of ground in their songs and those they just popularized...